Talk:M25 motorway

Fence

Is it a pollution control fence between J11 and J10? HOw does it work? Rich Farmbrough 09:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Junction Guide or map

Both of theses wuld be useful if created, not really sure where to start from. Might make a Junctin guide with the roard that comes off possibly.

Opening date

I reverted the opening date to 1975 - that's when the first section of M25. Though I thought about adding a category to the template box for "date of completion to current length" - thoughts/ideas? Erath 09:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It is incredibly misleading to say opening date 1975. The idea of the infobox is to get the basic facts without reading the whole article. I think it is failing the reader if it implies the whole road was complete in 1975, when it was how much at that point? One or two junctions worth? MRSC 10:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I do take your point on board - but then consistency becomes a problem with other motorways. We can't go out and say the M1 was completed in 1999, when it was a significant motorway when it first opened in 1959. That's why I suggested adding a "Date opened" and "Date completed" section. Erath 10:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. MRSC 11:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Erath 11:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

hello

Ring Road

Just for the files: the A10 round German capital of Berlin is a 196km long ring road, so the M25 is surely not worlds biggest ring road. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesautobahn_10 for reference.

Ok, I am correcting this in the article then. Hardouin 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As Hardouin does not seem to have corrected it, I did it now. In a gracious manner, however. It now reads "to be one of the longest city bypasses" instead of "to be the longest city bypass".

No no, I had corrected it, but someone removed my correction in the meantime. Nationalism is running high on Wikipedia unfortunately... Hardouin 02:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Link - My-M25.co.uk Forum Forum for the many millions of M25 users to share information ; I suggest removing this, as nothing has been added since March '08, and the only correspondent (1) seems not to be based in the UK. Railtracksurvivor Oct 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.148.164 (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Busiest motorway of Europe

As for ring road length above, this statement is also untrue. The Périphérique of Paris had between 1.1 and 1.2 million cars per day in 2002, which is almost 6 times more than the M25. So I corrected the statement in the article. Hardouin 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. 1.2 million cars per day is an awful lot. That would be nearly 14 cars per second - i.e. not far short of 2 cars per second per lane, probably much closer separation at peak times! Do Parisiens really drive like that, or perhaps are the statistics used for the Périph different from that of the M25?

The M25's usage statistics that are usually quoted are the average number of vehicles passing a particular point per day (referred to as AADT in official statistics), at the point where it's being measured. The total number of vehicles using the M25 as part of the journey will be much higher, as most people will be only using a part of the M25

The high figure for the number of cars sharing the same lane per second if the 1.2 million figure quoted above for the Périphérique is generated like that of the M25 suggests to me that the figure is actually likely to be the total number of vehicles using a part of the Periph per day.

This site suggests an AADT of only 120,000 vehicles per day, much less than that of the M25's western section.

I think more investigation is necessary into what the figures are, and what exactly they describe. Richard B 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, there are also other concurrents. The BAB100 in Berlin (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesautobahn_100) counts up to 216.000 vehicles passing a particular point per day (e.g. Dreieck Funkturm). In the German wikipedia it was called up to today "Europe's busiest motorway". I just changed it to be "one of Europe's busiest motorways", as to me it seems to be quite comparable to the M25. In regard to the Périphérique I can definately say that it has sometimes 2, sometimes 3 lanes per direction, and that it is half of the day completely congested. A reasonable estimation to me would be a maximum of 150.000 vehicles using a part of the Periph per day.
--NYR

Nope 1.2 million car per days for 32 km the average distance traversed by a driver is 7km Make the calculus 1,200,000/32*7= 262,200 and you can see the average traffic of Paris peripherique is 262,200 cars per day The busiest part can easy has 300,000 cars per day. Minato ku 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Minato Ku

You can always twist statistics to have them say whatever you need to prove your point. What I find particularly annoying is the overall nationalist tone of this article ("the M25 is the longest orbital motorway in the world", "the M25 is the busiest motorway in Europe"). Now you say that we should count vehicules passing at a particular point per day, not vehicules for the overall motorway. Ok. According to this webpage from the French Senate ([1]), in 2002 traffic on the A4 motorway near Saint-Maurice, in the suburbs of Paris, was 275,000 vehicules per day. So that's much higher than either Dreieck Funkturm in Berlin, or M25 near Heathrow Airport. And that was 4 years ago. As everybody who have been to Paris recently would know, traffic in the Paris metropolitan area has increased a lot in the recent years, so the figure for A4 near Saint-Maurice is probably higher now than in 2002. Hardouin 03:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Of cause, thats true. It is probably just that one has to find something special to justify an entry in wikipedia. In general, an entry for a motorway is quite boring and without much really helpful information. Might it be a better solution to just delete all these more or less speculative and rather hard to prove statements? If not, denoting at least which criterium was used to justify the statement, e.g. "vehicules passing at a particular point per day" like you did is a good start. :) NYR 10:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, you're saying that having a big, busy motorway round your capital should be a source of nationalist pride? You twisted continentals... :P --zippedmartin 13:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Distance around the M25

How much difference is there in distance travelled between the innermost and outermost lanes of the M25 if you were to drive all the way round? (My husband thinks about 160m... anyone know better?)

The calculation would depend on the various lane-drops and gains that exist on the M25 - some bits have 2 lanes, some 3, some 4 and I think a small section even has 6.

For the sake of doing a rough calculation - let's assume that our hypothetical M25 follows the same route as the real one - but has exactly 3 lanes in each direction - and also that the M25 is continuous (i.e. that the A282 is actually the M25)

The difference in distance between the line that forms the hard-shoulder, and the line between the lanes and the central reservation - with the above assumptions - would be approximately 70 metres (= 2 x pi x 11m - 11m being the width between hard shoulder and central reservation line on a 3-lane motorway)

The fact that the M25 has sections with different number of lanes would alter this slightly - as would the fact that the Dartford crossing is in fact the A282. Richard B 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Double that to include all six lanes (both directions) and the central reservation equals 140m. Sp3ktor 14:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The only complication you're adding by including both directions (i.e. asking the question how much further is it if you travel round clockwise than anticlockwise) - is that the M25's carriageways do not have a fixed distance between them at all points. The carriageways split apart near to Junction 23, and at J5. The Dartford crossing (of the A282 - but included in my calculation above) has one carriageway over the bridge - whilst the other is in the tunnel - so a fair separation in both distance and height) Richard B 20:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I recently came across a Highway Agency web page that showed the cumulative distances of each junction that referenced driver locations signs. Rather than enter into a long discussion, I decided to include this information and see what happened. I am cross-referencing this to the general page on motorways. User:martinvl 19:55 2009-06-09 —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Nickname

Should this article mention the various nicknames given to this piece of tarmac hell? It is frequently referred to as 'the road to hell' (as hinted at in the article when mentioning the song of the same name) and the 'magic roundabout'. Also, the lane info seems very much out of date. It is 4 lanes each way virtually all way round now with only a fraction at 3 lanes each way. The new parts near Staines and Heathrow are 5 or 6 lanes each way.

Traffic Wave Congestion

This would be a good article to reference the phenomenon of the progressive speed modulation of heavy traffic which often occurs on the M25. Perhaps somebody who knows more than me about queuing theory could add somethingChrisAngove 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Advertising?

Advertising? Wiki terrorism? Oh yeah? This bit ought to go.82.15.46.131 22:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this section now as it looked like blatant advertising/spam to me. Apart from anything else it referred to an event which 'happened' in November 2007 which obviously can't be fact. I'm sure if people disagree then my edits will be reverted anyway! TrevelyanD 21:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

M25.mobi - I've added a site to the External Links section that provides M25 travel information while on the move. The site is free to all that use it and is a relevant reference for those people that are increasingly using the internet via their phones. In comparison to the M25 forum link that is shown above it, it has significantly more value... Solutioneering (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Racing

I've added a section about the races/time trials that occurred in the late 80's based on the BBC Radio 4 programme. It would be interesting to find out more information about this, particularly as the emergency services made their predictable play of how very naughty it was without any evidence of accidents, deaths or injuries.

Since more general, unreferenced, ancidotes can't be placed on the main page I've created this talk page thread as a collection point.

TVR SEAC Tony Dron & Chris Schirle – Pulled by police and failed to complete. [2]

“ I recall there were some cars with a small discrete sticker on the rear window that had a M25 map (a la ring map) with sub60 or <60 in the middle. You had to a lap in under 60 mins to earn the sticker. I think it meant an average of 117 MPH. ” — bobt

“ Back in 2002 (funnily enough, in the GT2!!) i did a lap in 45 mins and something seconds. No video evidence though. (146ish average). ” — lonman

Another PistonHeads thread from 2002 [3]

-- John 13:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions finacial workers in Docklands and talks of the 80's most of the financial buildings in the docklands (canary wharf) were not finished til the early nineties were they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.97.146 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was repeating what the radio prog. said - if you've got better info. and references then feel free to modify it. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 08:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

References in Common Culture

In attempting to wikify the Andy Hamilton link to show the Divine Comedy reference (as a reader might not know the Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate reference), it simply broke again. And again. And again. Can someone who is more gifted in Wikipedia-fu than I do it? Jessica Schmidt (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably they have changed the heading ? The future proofed way of doing it would be to anchor the heading and placing a comment that it's linked to here, but I can't remember how to do it <g> ! Perhaps WikiQuote is more appropriate in any case, and the same applies there, no doubt - Wikiquote:Inferno#Canto_III:_The_gate_of_hell -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you're after ? -

M25, "abandon hope all ye who enter here; no services until Junction 12".

-- John (Daytona2 · talk) 23:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Six lanes each way in at least one place

Around the Heathrow T4&T5/Staines area the M25 is 6 lanes in each direction (plus hard shoulders) and has been for a few years now. Surely that warrants a mention? Anyone know if that is an EU record? This is uninterrupted carriageway, it's not a series of separated carriageways that just happen to be next to each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.182.109 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to CBRD the M61 at Linnyshaw Moss, Greater Manchester (close to the M60 interchange), which has 17 separate traffic lanes side by side, spread across several parallel carriageways. However, a look on the ground makes it clear that there are 18 lanes parallel for a very short while (aerial photographs confirm this).Kentm (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That is just seperate carriageways though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.145.224 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tunnel between J25 & J26

Please can someone add details of the tunnel between J25 & J26 (at 51.682721°N 0.039825°W / 51.682721; -0.039825): What's it called? Why is it there? Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

25 to 26 is the Holmesdale tunnel. Originally constructed as dual three lane carriageways with hard shoulders, this year widening was completed to add a fourth lane while maintaining continuous hard shoulder. The purpose of the tunnel was, I believe to keep some 'green space' between London and Hertfordshire (though of course the new Carillion buildings probably put paid to this now.

26 to 27 is the Bell Common tunnel. Same construction as above and currently undergoing similar widening work. The purpose of this is to prevent Epping Forest becoming broken up and to allow wildlife such as deer easy crossing.

I would have put this in the main article, but I can't reference any of it. C2r (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Orbital

"One act, Orbital, even took its name from the motorway." Are they really at all significant or relevant to the M25's history? This looks like pure self-promotion to me, the group having recently reformed. 92.17.37.70 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Traffic stats

The Dept for Transport website shows three AADF figures for the M25 in excess of 200,000: Go to http://www.dft.gov.uk/matrix/forms/search.aspx, search for M25 in the tables and go to the second page. The relevant figures are for count points are 47876, 27923 and 73638. I can't locate these count points on the maps. Anyone? Pterre (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede (lead)

I think the lede (lead) needs attention:

• The M25 motorway, also known as the M25 corridor...

Surely the M25 is the M25 and the corridor is the corridor (ie the surrounding strip of towns and green-belt)?

• it is said to be one of the longest city bypasses in the world.. Surely it is one of the longest.
• In Europe, the M25 is the second-longest ring road after the Berlin Ring (A 10) which is longer by 5 miles (8 km). The M60 motorway in Manchester makes it the only other city in the United Kingdom to benefit from an orbital motorway. A motorway box encircles Birmingham but it uses parts of the M5, M6 and M42. Upon completion of the M74 motorway in 2011 to the Kingston Bridge, Glasgow will have a similar arrangement to Birmingham, though a route passing through the city centre, using the M8, M73 and M74.

Is all this guff really needed in the lede? It should surely go under a sub-heading. Pterre (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Is that better? I have been through it, adding some details about when it opened and how busy it is and removed a load of 'guff' and also a really weird reference to a book about children's stories which didn't seem to be at all relevant. I think the rest of the article could do with some work and possibly a 'statistics' section is needed that can hold all the comparison information that has been loaded into the description. PeterEastern (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that looks a lot better, thanks! Pterre (talk)

As noted above it seems to have peak usage of above 200,000 but I can't pin down a source. The 196,000 figure is apparently from 2003. The Highways Agency quotes 200,000 and there are some figures on the Dept for Transport website, but I've not been able to pin these to a location. Pterre (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• The HA mentions 200,000 frequently and I suggest we should use that instead, although the 2003 figure is good for the history section. I suggest that the figure has now peaked because the road is saturated mot of the time and the volume will only increase when it is widened. Seriously though, I don't believe the road and the feeders can take any more hence the reason the figure hasn't changed in 5 years. PeterEastern (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the traffic volume, this page on the HA website says "The western section of the M25 is one of the busiest sections of motorway in Europe carrying in excess of 200,000 vehicles per day. [...] It was designed in the mid 1990's to carry 100,000 vehicles a day. However, the busiest section between Junctions 13 and 14 already carries 200,000 vehicles a day.". Interestingly, this Guardian article from 1993, also gives the 200,000 figure - "[The proposed link roads] are intended to remove traffic travelling between the M3 (Junction 12) and the M4 (Junction 15) from the M25, which carries up to 200,000 vehicles a day on that stretch." Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Junction table

I'm from Sweden, but have driven from Ramsgate to Weymouth several times in the mid 1990's. I remember first driving a short bit om the M2, then changed to an A-road over the hills that I think is called "North Downs" and close to Maidstone there were Motorway again, which ended at the M25 London Orbital wich I followed to the junction to M3 towards Southampton (and later M27 and smaller roads down to the coast) But I can't find the number of the M3-junction in the table. I do not remember the number of the junction though. (By the way I got a flat tire at an maintenence part, with free recovery. I think the UK is a very pleasent contry both to drive in, and to visit) 83.249.33.119 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would have been Junction 12 (which is in the table). Martinvl (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

7 Dec 2009 Undo

I appreciate your sentiments when you added the "miles" column to the M25 motorway, however I believe that they were mis-placed. Before you redo your work, please take a drive on the M25 (or any other English motorway) and look out for the Driver location signs. The distances that are catalogued in the article are the distances shown on these signs - please read the reference in the introduction to the section. By introducing miles you do a dis-service to drivers who wish to use these markers since thety will only ever see the kilometer-based markers when driving.

Finally, by making an issue of this, I am promoting roads safety in England - if there is an incident on the motorway, these signs are used to help the emergency services get to the scene of the indicent, but the British Government is very coy about the matter. By adding miles to the column, you will remove the safety message that I am putting across (but which should be put across by the British Government). Finally, I don't care what the Highway Code says about roadside telephones - most drivers use a mobile phone rather than looking for a roadside phone. Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits Martin, per WP:UNIT, "For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, in US articles they are usually United States customary units, and in the UK, they are more often metric units, with imperial units for measurements such as road distances and personal height and weight.". At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not here for POV pushing regarding your safety message. Jeni ^(talk) 09:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Jeni's reverting here. Road distances in the UK are always expressed in miles on direction signs and in everyday non-specialist use. The driver location signs are not used for navigation by the general public as there is no need - junction numbers, destinations and carriageway direction are all that is necessary (e.g. take the M25 clockwise to Junction 26 for Waltham Abbey). I suspect that the majority of drivers neither know nor care that the location signs use kilometres, they're just a number. As Jeni says, using wikipedia to promote anything (regardless of how worthwhile the cause may or may not be) is completely inappropriate per the neutral point of view policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If they are just numbers, then they should be displayed without units and therefore without any conversions. In that case, we should revent this article back to its state of 24 hours ago and change the "km" to "DLS". Martinvl (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the most logical solution is to remove the km col completely and just use miles, as is the case in the states. Jeni ^(talk) 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeni's suggestion is probably the worst possible solution as it violates both the WP:VERIFY and the WP:UNITS principals. The WP:UNITS principal states that in the event of a disagreemnt, the units used in the source document takes precedence and the other units are secondary units. The kilometre markings DLS are visible for any driver to see and in the case of the case of the M25 are published in kilometres in a Highways Authority document (See article for document reference). Clearly kilometres are the principal units. Martinvl (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is incorrect for us to use driver location signs as a source for distance. On many motorways, the measurement on the DLS sign is from an arbitrary point, not necessarily the start of the motorway. Taking the M6 as an example, the starting measurement point of the DLS signs is Charing Cross in London, yet the motorway starts 100 miles to the north at Catthorpe. The M1 starts at 11 or so km, as that is the distance it is from central London. Using driver location signs to measure distance for the purposes of the junction list is unreliable and incorrect. Its about time we started to rip out these columns from the junction tables and replace them with more accurate measurements. Jeni ^(talk) 11:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No - the correct procedure would be to record the start location as the Start of Motorway box. As a motorist, I am not too bothered about where the start point of the route is, what I am bothered about is "How much further"? If I know that a particular junction is at marker 758.0 and that I have just passed marker 622.0, then I have 136 units to drive. It would be nice to know what the units are. The actual units in the above example were taken from a trip when I drove to Naples, so I assumed that the units were kilometres. As regards ripping the existing measurements out and replacing them, do you have a verifiable alternative? The source that I gave is 100% verifiable and is also probably the most authoritative. Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking Wikipedia for a motoring guide. There are plenty of other wiki's which you can add this too, at the end of the day, this is an encyclopaedia. Please treat it as such. The guideline I linked to above explicitly states that imperial measurements are used on UK road articles. If you wish to change the guideline, please do feel free to start a discussion on the appropriate page. Over the next few weeks I will start to make the motorway exit lists compliant with the existing guidelines, of course, it would be easier for us all if you would assist in this. Jeni ^(talk) 13:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

user:Jeni wrote The guideline I linked to above explicitly states that imperial measurements are used on UK road articles. This is not 100% accurate. The text is actually For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first...in the UK, they are more often metric units, with imperial units for measurements such as road distances and personal height and weight. The emphasis is on the word appropriate. In the case of driver location signs, the appropriate unit is kilometres because that is the unit of measure used on the signs. It is also one of the few road signs that has received a blanket ministerial approval for a deviation from TSRGD.

May I also remind of some of the Wikipedia cornerstones WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL (which supercede WP:UNITS). By converting the kilometers to miles, you compromise both unless you keep the kilometres.

WP:NPOV includes the statement … must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. In the case of distances, the only reliable source that I am aware of is that offered by driver location signs and by location marker posts. If you know of any others, please tell me.Martinvl (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are not really relevant here, the fact that driver location signs are in kilometres should be (and is) discussed on the article about driver location signs, it's not relevant to any specific motorway. The style guideline is clear that for road distances in the UK imperial units should be primary. If you disagree with that style guideline, then start a discussion on the guideline talk page, not here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Roads#More opinions would be helpful at talk:M25 motorway asking for people to contribute to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm just an editor from the States, but I'll toss in my £0.02 here all the same. Using the physical roadsigns would be akin to OR unless there is a published listing someplace. For highway articles here in the states, we have straight-line diagrams or control section atlases that give the distances along the highway, or published GIS data to come up with the milepost information. Yes, we have to do some arithmetic to get the numbers, but simple addition is not OR. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean maps like this one?

"M25 Road Network Driver Location Signs" (PDF). Highways Agency. Retrieved 2009-12-08. (Fer the record, the Highways Agency who published this map are the government body responsible for the main English roads). Martinvl (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And this whole discussion is whether the figures given in that diagram should be the only figures presented, and if not, how both should be presented. Ideally I prefer using only the published figures, but I am willing to compromise and display the published figures as the principal figures with the conversions in brackets, thereby keeping to the principal of WP:VERIFY. This is the format that I presented in my last posting timestamped 13:26 7 December 2009 (which was subsequently revoked by another editor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have just come in on this discussion and I think the following points should be made:

• Driver location signs give distances in kilometres. [4] This fact is worth noting.
• Ordinarily, this would mean that distances should be expressed in kilometres first. However, this does clash with the general preference in the UK for road distances to be expressed in miles.
• People have argued to follow the sources, or to follow the general UK usage. There is obviously no consensus on this matter.
• However, what is beyond argument is that the Driver location signs give distances in kilometres.

I believe that this fact is notable. Because of that I have added that fact to the article and have backed it up with a reference. However, I have not changed the order of the units, as this question may need further discussion. Michael Glass (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: I think the table of distances from the driver location signs should put the kilometres first. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, it goes against the accepted way of doing things, miles are the primary unit of measurement for distance on roads in the UK, per the MOS. Using driver location signs to mark the location of junctions is misleading, in many cases they do not start from 0 at the beginning of the motorway. I keep meaning to get round to convert the measurements so that they correctly start from 0 at the start of the motorway. Jeni ^(talk) 22:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If User:Jeni sees fit to add the distance in miles from the start of the motorway, then she should do so, provided that:

• She does not remove the distances as given by driver locations signs (which are verifiable and therefore in accordance with Wikipedia policy).
• She adds a note explaining why the distance in miles does not correspond to the distnace given on the driver location signs.
• She has a verifiable source that enables her to add the distances in miles.

Anything else will be vandalism - WP:VERIFY being one of the five WP:PILLARS which takes precedence over WP:MOS Martinvl (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem here where three things collide: the need to verify information; the guideline that says that miles come first in UK articles; and the reality that the driver location signs are in kilometres. Obviously, something has to give, and I believe that in this case the guideline needs to give way to common sense. In other words, it would be preferable to give priority to the actual figures on the driver location signs. Michael Glass (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the Driver location signs frequently use a datum point that is unrelated to the road they are on - for example the datum point for the M1 is in central London so that the start of the motorway is not 0. The M6 continues then continues the M1 numbering system, so that the location of junctions is apparently further from the start of the road than the road is long - I don't have the figures to hand, but if the M6 was 300 km long and the northernmost junction coincided with the 500km driver location sign you have to explain the discrepancy. As has been explained above, that the signs are in km is irrelevant - the public do not use these signs for navigation, all signed road distances are in miles, and junctions are referred to by (generally sequential) number or (less commonly) name - there location in relation to the datum point is irrelevant. If we include the location of the junctions in the article, and I'm not convinced we should, then we should follow the style guide that states unequivocally that the primary units for distances in UK road articles are miles. Having miles primary in some cases and secondary in other cases is a recipe for confusion - this being one of the reasons we have such style guidelines in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary purpose of driver location signs is to enable drivers to give their location to the emergency services. As such they are pure numbers that have no meaning. A secondary purpose is to enable drivers to check where they are. For example, if I pass the 140 km sign and I know that there are services at 150 km and at 170 km, I can make an informed decision as to whether I should drive 10 kn before stopping or 30 km before stopping. I do not wait for the next signs telling me how far to the services. When I am driving, I do this all the time. In neither of these situations is the zero point of any importance. Finally, Wikipedia should firstly reflect what is really out there and which appears on offical maps such as M25 Driver Location signs, (published by Highways Agency) (which after all is verifiable) and then do any conversions or translations as appropriate.Martinvl (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets be honest... "For example, if I pass the 140 km sign and I know that there are services at 150 km and at 170 km, I can make an informed decision as to whether I should drive 10 kn before stopping or 30 km before stopping." is not a purpose of the driver location signs, if it were, we wouldn't have signs giving the distance to the next services after most junctions! Just because you do personally, doesn't mean that is the situation for the greater population. Are you able to source that fact at all? Jeni ^(talk) 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone who actually works in traffic management, Driver Location Signs are still experimental and are not the basis of navigation in this country. The Highways Agency have started a programme of rolling them out in England only, as Transport Scotland and Traffic Wales operate different systems. Bryn666 21:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it is relevant whether the signs are experimental or not, or whether the numbering starts at zero or even whether the signs are used for navigation. The point is that they are placed at intervals measured in metres. Therefore, when we have a table that sets out the distances one would normally expect that the metric distances would come first. Take this:

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

Now the figure 3.5 miles is a reasonable approximation of the distance on the driver location sign. However, being an approximation, it's slightly out. In this case it's 67.296 metres short. (That's more than 220 feet and 9 inches short or more than twice the width of Tower Bridge in London.) So what we're deciding on is whether we put the source figures first or whether we put our approximations first. I believe that the source figure should come first. Like this:

M25 Motorway
km	miles	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
5.7	3.5

It's not a big change. It reflects the sources. There are still the conversions into miles. However, we have ensured that the source is quoted accurately. I hope that this explains why I have suggested this revision and why I believe that it is better than the present text. Michael Glass (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If the source is in km, obviously we should use the km figure and convert to miles from that, but whether the miles or km are cited first does not impact on their validity. Anyone verifying the source will see from the source that the figures given are in km, and we can even mention that in the description we give the source in the references section. Putting the km first might not be a big change, but it contradicts the style guidelines, standard practice on British roads (from which the guideline is drawn), and every other use of distances in the article. Before reading this thread I've never heard of anyone using the location signs to navigate to service stations - personally I use the signs that tell me how far away the services are in miles, as this makes it easy for me to work out how long it will take based on my currents speed in mph, and means I don't have to look up their location in a publication in advance or when I'm at the wheel. It wouldn't even occur to me that there would be publications listing the location of services with reference to the driver location signs. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thryduulf wrote ... standard practice on British roads (from which the guideline is drawn) .... From this statement I infer that if standard practice changes, then the guideline must change. In the case of driver location signs, standard practice has changed. BTW, if you are unfortunate enough to get a speeding ticket on a motorway, the location of the alleged offence might well be written "M4/123.4". Once you calm down and get home, you can use the driver location signs as shown in Wikipedia to verify that the police have filled out the ticket correctly, and if they do not correspond, you are in a position to double-check and challenge the ticket. Of course, if the ticker is correct, you have lost.

Finally, now that you have read about driver location signs, you might find yourself using them - they are at 500 m intervals - signs that explicitly advertise services are much farther apart. When I went to Italy last summer, I certainly equiped myself with some listings from the Italian version of Wikipedia to help me navigate. It is a pity that HMG spent £3.9 million erecting driver location signs and then not advertising them. Martinvl (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have known about driver location signs for a long time, and I posted up thread about how I used them to find a friend who had broken down on the M5, however I still don't use them for other purposes. Whether you used the Italian versions is not relevant to which order the units used on this article should be displayed in. I cannot verify what you say about the police noting the location of an offence based on the location signs - have you got a citation? I suspect the reason the signs are not being advertised as navigation aids is that they are not intended to be used for navigation - they are intended to allow emergency services to be given an accurate location for an incident. Standard practice for giving distances in miles on UK roads has not changed - the driver location signs give the same distance information as the roadside marker posts that have been present by the side of the motorway for decades - see http://www.cbrd.co.uk/indepth/mileagesigns/. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles. Lets go back to basics and in particular WP:FIVE.

• Is my approach encyclopedic? - Yes - the readings that I am posting meets all the requirements - in particular they are verifyable and they are not an editor's personal interpretation.
• Does my approach have a neutral point of view? What I have put in place is a statement of fact - it does not promote any point of view neutral or otherwise.
• Is it free content? - yes
• Am I interacting a a civil manner? - yes
• Finally, Wikipeidia does not have any other firm rules. As you pointed out, the WP:MOS recommends the use of miles in respect of British article sconnected with road becuase British roads signs are in miles. However driver location signs are not in miles, so this convention is weakened. User:Jeni did suggest that the distance from the start of the motorway in miles could be added to the junction table. As long as this was done in a responsible manner, I would not oppose it - however it would be up to Jeni to find a reliable source, but I woudl deem any modification to the driver location sign list without a good reason as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that you and I will see eye-to-eye on this point, so I wont rephrase again the reasons why I believe that the driver location signs being in km is irrelevant to the fact that the primary units for British road distances are miles and therefore that miles should be the primary units for articles about British roads. On your point about distances from the start of the motorway, all it needs is a reliable source for either the distance the start of the road is from the datum point, or how far from the start of the road any point is where the distance of that point from the datum is known from a reliable source. All other points can be calculated from this by simple empirical mathematics, which does not count as original research in WP terms. For example if Junction X is in one source noted as being 100km from the datum point, and in another source as being 50 miles from the start of the road, we know that the datum point is 12.137 miles (19.533 km) from the start of the road, therefore all other locations are (distance from datum point) - 12.137 miles from the start of the road. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are happy to cross-check the datum points for the start of each motorway and use the values given by the driver location signs to calculate teh mileage from teh start of the motorway, then leaving the driver location sign values will serve as a verifiable cross-check to your calculations. Martinvl (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It would however be confusing to have both values in the article, and so as long as we make it clear what the source of the start of motorway figures is and how they've been calculated, there is no real need to have them in the article. I'm still not convinced of the need to have any of these figures in the article anyway - Wikipedia is not a drivers guide nor an atlas. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be clear how the values are calculated. You questioned the need for the figures by writing Wikipedia is not a drivers guide nor an atlas. In my view, Wikipedia is whatever the users make of it and as such they are entitled to verifiable data that is presented in a neutral manner and having such figures does not hurt. Furthermore, publicising driver location signs could save a life, which cannot be a bad thing. Martinvl (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have two opinions here. One says that miles must come first as per the convention about British roads. The other insists that kilometres must come first, according to the source. If we set up the question like this, it will be impossible to agree. However, if we look at the question in a different way, we may be able to come to an agreement that will be reasonably satisfactory to both parties. In my opinion, the two salient points are the beliefs that miles must come first and that it must be clear what the primary units are. If I could come up with an arrangement that would keep the miles first but would make it clear that the kilometre measures were the primary units, would this satisfy the concerns of both parties? Michael Glass (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If we have the figures in the article, then the miles should be first with the km afterwards per all the other road distances. Obviously we should note that the source gives the figures in km, and thus the miles are the ones that have been calculated (I don't think we should describe either as "primary units" if we do this to avoid confusion). Imho, explaining this in the references section line that links to the source would be sufficient. My comments above about it being confusing to have both values refer to having distances calculated from the datum point and distances calculated from the start of the road, not having both miles and km. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re km and miles

There is a way to put the miles first but still show that in this case they are derived figures. This can be done by putting the miles in parentheses. Here is an example:

M25 Motorway
(miles)	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
(3.5)	5.7

By doing this both points of view are accommodated. It gives neither side all that they might want, but it is a compromise that I think that most people could agree to. What do people think? Michael Glass (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Before rushing ahead and adding miles, one should first read the article Milepost equation. It makes absolutely no sense to just convert the numbers on the driver location signs to miles – if the inclusion of miles is to be at all meaningful to drivers, then:

• They should be based on the start point of the motorway concerned, not the nominal start of the motorway.
• They should take into account any adjustments resulting from the milepost equation.
• The notes at the top of the junction list should explain to the reader exactly what each column means, emphasising that the driver location (kilometre) signs are the signs that will be seen by the driver and that the miles are calculated from the kilometre readings, taking into account the milepost equation. Martinvl (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the text to include the starting point of the numbering system. It's near the River Thames. (The sheet describes this as a point near Junction 31, but as this would be meaningless to anyone but regular commuters on the M25, I included the nearest landmark, which is the Thames.) It should be noted, of course, that the mile conversions have already been added to the article, and the question at issue is not whether they should be added - they're already there - but how they are to be presented. The question of milepost equation would only arise if the M25 had been rerouted, and as the driver location signs are relatively new, this is not likely to be an issue. Perhaps the wording could be expanded to take into account your last dot point. Michael Glass (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that there has been no further comment about my proposal to put the miles in parentheses in the table. I believe that it would be better to make this change to the article for the following reasons:

• It would put the derived figures in parentheses. This makes the table less likely to mislead readers.
• It would keep the order of units as they are, something that is very important to at least one editor.
• It could help to resolve the present dispute about the presentation of units with a reasonable compromise.

I realise that this compromise is not perfect, but it does seem to be the best fit at this time. Are there any further comments or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed your earlier comments appearing on my watchlist, but I oppose the presentation of the miles in brackets. It looks very wrong in the table. All that is needed is notes in the header row, something like

M25 Motorway
miles[1]	km[1]	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

with the ^[1] linking to a note something like "Distance figures are sourced from <title of source>[reference link] which gives the distance in km clockwise from a datum point between Junction 31 and the north bank of the River Thames.[reference link] Mileages are calculated from the distance in kilometres."

This does not give the confusing parentheses (a format often used to denote negative figures in tables), doesn't clutter up the display for those who don't care which figures are used in the source, and provides a link to all the relevant information in the standard Wikipedia format of table notes and references. The note could possibly be phrased better and probably significantly more concisely, but brevity is not a skill of mine. Thryduulf (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ps: I've also added a section sub header at the start of this proposed solution as the section is getting very long. Thryduulf (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Before this argument is persued any further, look at the practicalities if the text "km^[1]". Where do you plan to put the note for the text? If I was a reader, I would expect to find the text in the references section at the end of the aricle. This means that must be an auto-generated number triggererd by a reference tag. I spent some time trying to do that and make it come out in white, but failed - I always got a blue number (which does not show up against black). That is why I wrote an introductory section to the junction table. If you can get Wikipedia to generate white reference number, please let me know how you do it, otherwise rethink how you will present your explanations. (BTW, the text (A Carriageway) and (B Carriageway) also links up to the article driver location signs.

Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already a note in the text. I have decided to cut the Gordian knot. I have put an extra explanation in the text and put the miles in italics. Please look at what I have done, and if there is any problem let's talk about it more. Michael Glass (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The italics are better than parentheses, but still imo unnecessary as there is a mechanism to add footnotes in the manner I was suggesting - see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Separating reference lists and explanatory notes (WP:REFNOTE) which I still think would be the much better way of presenting it. The explanation is useful, but not where I would think of looking to see why the miles were italicised.

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

I've not bothered to write the entire note in this example, nor use the nested referencing. I too have tried to get it to use white rather than blue text for the link but I've not been able to. I'm going to ask this question at the help desk. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk#Changing the colour of links to footnotes for the question I've asked. Thryduulf (talk) 11

06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction Wikipedia:Help desk#Changing the colour of links to footnotes Martinvl (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a way, but it's a bit kludgy and will break the instant that a new ref is added. The poster who began with "It looks very wrong in the table. All that is needed is notes in the header row" was on the right lines where his example used the <sup></sup> tag. First set up the footnote, but not in the coloured background area. Then you need to determine the internal link ID for that ref, and the sup tag link to that with a normal wikilink. So we might have this:

M25 Motorway
miles[1]	km[1]	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

Note:

This mayfit the bill. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have played around with User:Redrose64's proposals and come up with this: The tricks that I used were:

• I made some "dummy" references and was able to lose the actual auto-generated number. (It disappeared into the ether somewhere to the right of the text "M25 Motorway").
• I tested how to insert more than one note. I actually insterd three notes, one of which had a link to another article.
• I tested how the system would wrap when I have "long" text in the carriageway columns. This happens in real life.
• I stopped the subscripts next to "mi" and "km" from wrapping by inserting a no-break space between the text and the subscript. (Wrapping occurs if the numbner in the column does not exceed 100.0)
• I replaced "miles" with "mi" to prevent the column from becoming too wide.
• The text that I used for the notes is purely for test purposes. We can agree the exact text later.

M25 Motorway
mi [1]	km [2]	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)[3]	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
23.5	35.7	A lot of text here for the clockwise carriageway, We need to test how it wraps.	J2	A lot of text here for the anti-clockwise carriageway, We need to test how it wraps.

Notes:

Martinvl (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the #cite_note-1 etc. to link to the correct notes. One was linking back to my earlier example. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

While I acknowledge all the hard work of other editors, I think my solution is neater, clearer and easier than the use of footnotes. See below:

Data from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from a point near the River Thames, east of London, when travelling clockwise on the motorway. . Figures in kilometres in the table below are from the Department for Transport; figures in miles are derived figures.

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

However, perhaps the introductory text could be tweaked. Any comments or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I am still opposed to the italicisation for the reasons I expressed above. Your version is simpler to code, but it is not clearer as you have to hunt outside the table for what the italics might mean and the mention in the prose is going to be irrelevant for those who don't are whether miles or km are the source figures (I suspect the vast majority), especially as those people interested in any detail on the driver location signs will read the Driver location signs article (I've just thought we could add a list of datum points to that article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add a reference to one of the notes in my version (notes cross-referenced by suffix [1], [2] and [3]), but it did not work. This leads me to suggest that the introductory text should read:

In this table:

• Kilometre values are displayed to the driver on Driver location signs
• Carraigeway characters are also displayed on driver location signs
• Mile data is a Wikipedia-specific conversion conversion from kilometre data

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to all three of those bullet points. 1 and 2 just unnecessarily duplicate the Driver location signs article. All we need to do is note that the DfT list we have sourced the km values from uses the same datum point as the driver location signs, we didn't use the signs themselves. Point 3 is unnecessarily self-referential, hundreds of sites scrape, mirror and reuse WP content so it isn't Wikipedia specific. In the body of the text, in infoboxes, etc we don't mark all the conversions as being WP specific. If it wasn't for this huge thread I would say that we don't need to mark the miles as derived at all, just that the source uses km, as we have this huge thread we apparently do need to note it, but we need not do so more prominently than in a footnote. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'd like to direct your attention back to my proposal. If I have read you correctly, what you said was that italics were better than parentheses However, the explanation was not where you would expect to look to find out why the figures were italicised. What we are trying to do here is to work out an acceptable compromise that everyone can live with. This means that those who want the kilometres first have to agree to having the miles first while you need to accommodate the views of others who insist we must clearly mark the difference between the original figures and the derived figures. Now you might feel we don't need to mark the miles as derived but remember that others will certainly regret that the kilometres have been relegated to second place. So, to make this work, both sides have to compromise, and that is something that can be very hard to do. I know my compromise isn't perfect, but I hope that it is something that we can all live with, however reluctantly. Michael Glass (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My previous comment was intended to be read as saying that although I personally don't think we need to mark the miles as derived, others do and so we do need to mark them as such. My very strong preference is that a footnote (separate to or within the references section, I have no strong opinion either way) is the most appropriate place to do such marking. The reasons I think this are:

• having a paragraph or bulleted list before the table is disruptive to the flow, especially one that duplicates the Driver location signs article. Can I presume you accept my comment about the self-referential nature of your previously suggested intro?
• The identification of the source for the figures is a reference, and should be treated like other references. This is where people who want to verify that the information is correct will expect to find the source they can use to do this.
• The note that the original figures are in km is a comment on this reference, and logically belongs with the reference.
• Footnotes are the standard way of providing notes about information presented in a table. See List of London Underground stations for an article that makes extensive use of references and footnotes in a table. This provides the information for those that want it and minimally disrupts those that don't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The heading in the table in the article List of London Underground stations is light gray in colour and the references show up well. The sub-heading in the junction list is black and the references do not show up at all. Maybe we should change the sub-heading from black to light gray. Martinvl (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume that the table is the colour that it is because it matches the junction numbers on the physical signs, but I have nothing against changing it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

References

Martinvl (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to comments about the need for footnotes, the introduction to the table is already footnoted. I strongly believe that the table needs an introduction. We really do need to explain what the table is about. Otherwise it is going to be gobbledegook to the average reader. My own preference is for the present introduction to be retain in full. It says:

"Data from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from a point near the River Thames, east of London, when travelling clockwise on the motorway. . Figures in kilometres in the table below are from the Department for Transport; figures in miles are derived figures."

Obviously we have to explain the location of the starting point of the numbers (near the River Thames), what direction the numbers run (clockwise) and the units used (km). As the table has a column in miles (I agree with proposals to abbreviate this to "mi") we need an explanation of the two columns, and I think the present explanation seems to be a good place to put it. However, notes at the bottom the table would also be acceptable, though more cluttered. The note against the miles would have to explain that these are derived figures; those against the kilometres would need to explain that these are as per the Driver Location Signs. Even so, we would still need the introduction to explain what the table was about. Michael Glass (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with abbreviating miles to "mi" and the table does need to be introduced, however your introduction doesn't actually do that. Better would be something like "The table below gives details of each junction including which roads interchange, which destinations are signed from the motorway and how far it is from the driver location signs datum point near whichever bank of the River Thames it is." Other footnotes can come in the style presented previously. That miles being derived and kms are used in the source can be detailed in a single footnote linked to twice.As an aside, I think we need to specify which bank of the river the datum point is near so that it is clear whether the bridge/tunnels are at the start or end. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I agree with your proposed additions to the introduction though I also think that the unit of measurement should be mentioned. Perhaps the wording could go something like this:

The table below gives details of each junction including which roads interchange, which destinations are signed from the motorway and how far it is in kilometres from the datum point when travelling clockwise on the motorway. The datum point is a point near Junction 31 just north of the north bank of the River Thames . Figures in kilometres in the table below are from Driver Location Signs; figures in miles are derived figures.

Michael Glass (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire last sentence is not needed as it duplicates the footnotes, and is irrelevant to most people. I thought we'd agreed not to italicise the miles figures, so why italicise the word "miles"? The table shows both miles and kilometres so why do we need to specifically say it shows kilometres? Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I still want the miles to be italicised to set them apart from the kilometres. I also think the last sentence is needed to explain the layout of the first two columns in the table that follows. Note that the wording of the last sentence explains both the kilometres and the miles. Michael Glass (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm still completely against italicising the miles figures as it it is confusing and unnecessary. I still completely fail to understand why we need to set one off from the other or explicitly explain that one is derived from the other - I cannot find a single example of another table on Wikipedia that contains two sets of units where this is done. If you have two columns of figures, one headed "mi" and one headed "km" it's obvious that they are showing the same information in different units, otherwise we would have to explain every time we used a conversion in the prose as well. If one or both of these column labels has a link to a footnote explaining that miles are derived from the km figures used by the source, everybody who cares (and at least some who don't) will know that the miles are derived from the km figures used by the source. Please explain why any more is needed, given that this works perfectly well both everywhere else on Wikipedia and in reliable sources? Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Glass your constant trips round in circles in this discussion is getting extremely annoying, please cease. 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeni (talk • contribs)

How long is the M25?

Using Google Earth and the HA-supplied M25 diagram of Driver Location Signs, I back-measured the start of the M25. It turned out to be the middle of Junction 31 (which has a driver location sign of 186.6 km. This converts to 115.97 miles (or 116.0 if rounded to one significant figure). This poses the question "Where does the figure of 117 miles in the article's introduction come from?". Martinvl (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Martinvi, the pdf referrd to above simply says "The numbers refer to the kilometres from a point near Junction 31 on the M25." It is curious that the motorway authority is not more specific than that. Perhaps this explains the apparent discrepancy in the length of the motorway. Michael Glass (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The HA's main information page about the M25 http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/18111.aspx starts off with "At 117 miles, the M25 or London Orbital Motorway is the longest city bypass in the world.", so that is probably the source for the intro to this article. As for the ~1 mile discrepancy, could this be due to rounding errors and/or the length being different via the QE2 bridge and the tunnels? The inner (anti-clockwise) carriageway will be slightly shorter than the outer (clockwise) one, but I've no idea how significant that will be. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The distance clockwise will not be much longer than the distance anticlockwise. If the two carriageways are of constant width, and at a constant separation, the maximum difference in distance will simply be (2πw) metres, where

• π is the constant 3.14159...
• w is the motorway width in metres, which we may take as the separation between the two white lines delimiting the two carriageways from their nearside hard shoulders

If we assume that the lanes are 4m wide, and that there are four of them, and also that the central reservation is also a constant 4m wide, this makes motorway width (4 * 9) = 36 metres, so the calculation is (2 * π * 36) = 226.1947... metres, 247.3695... yards, or 0.1405... miles. Somewhat less than 0.53 miles anyway, which is what we need to add to 115.97 to get up to 116.5 and so round to 117.

Of course, if the two carriageways deviate significantly in places, with the clockwise taking a longer course than the anticlock, this will add some more on. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The carriageways do take significantly different routes across the river at Dartford, and through Junction 5 [5]. Google maps directions say that a clockwise journey from J4 to J6 is 14 miles, whereas the reverse journey is 13.7 miles, and that the QE2 bridge is 0.1 miles longer than the tunnels, so that will account for ~0.4 miles, which with the 0.14 miles you calculated give 0.54 miles difference, which seems to fit very nicely - especially as the anticlockwise carriageway looks to take a very slightly longer route just east of Junction 23. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Archival

We have talk on this page going back to 2005, and is now getting rather long. Unless anyone objects in the next few days I'll set up auto-archiving for this page. The bot has settings for how old threads must be before they are archived, I suggest 60 days, and the minimum number of threads left, I suggest using the default 3. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've set this up with the above parameters. The first archival should happen in a few hours. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed because of very little snow and many people

One year many people left work early, and got caught up with gritters, and the m25 was jammed for over a day. Does anyone have any info about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.178.113 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably the same time as this one on the M11. [6]. PeterEastern (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Staines upon Thames" or just "Staines"

Since you are not a registered editor and I cannot send you a message, I have had to reverted "Staines-upon-Thames" to "Staines". Can you supply documentary evidence that the road signs show "Staines-upon-Thames" rather than just "Staines"? May I draw to attention that the primary road network as per this document refers to "Hull", not "Kingston-upon-Hull", to "Kingston", not "Kingston-upon-Thames", to "Richmond", not "Richmond-upon-Thames", to "Newcastle", not "Newcastle-on-Tyne". It does however refer to "Newcastle-under-Lyme". Martinvl (talk)

Who isn't a registered editor and why did you "have to" revert the text back to the name by which Staines-upon-Thames was formerly known? Shufflee (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was unable to send you a message because you are not registered.
• Unless I am mistaken, nobody has told the Highways Agency about the change. Of course you might have seen documentary evidence that the motorway signage has changed, but until you actually publish such citations, the name "Staines" should stay - as I have shown the Highways Agency's track record is not to add extensions such as "-upon-Thames". Martinvl (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What sort of message were you unable to send? I am certainly a registered editor. And why does it matter what name the highways agency use? They call Manchester "M'c'r" on lane markings, but that doesn't mean that's what we should call it in Wikipedia. Surely the important thing is the actual name of the town. Shufflee (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

When people change junction lists, I normally send them a message telling them the policy - in this way I know that they have been informed. As regards the Highways Agency - did you look at the reference that I sent? Obviously not, or you would have seen the list of primary destinations and "M'c'r" is not one of them - in that list it is written "Manchester". Martinvl (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Send them a message telling them what policy? What exactly was stopping you sending me the message? I read the document you linked to, yes, but I don't see its relevance to Wikipedia. Shufflee (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Names on road signs

I see an editor getting stroppy about the exact form used for place names in this article. There is even an edit summary stating "UK Junction Lists reproduce the text on road signs themselves". The article content does not currently reflect that statement. The road sign for Heathrow Airport says just "Heathrow" and not "Heathrow Airport". The road sign for junction 13 says "A30 London (W) Hounslow Staines" not "London (West), Staines, Windsor A30".

I think we need a bit more flexibility here, and why should we overrule the Staines name change? Shufflee (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You would be better employed observing and showing respect to established editors. I would advise you to step back from this topic, unless you are trying to lose any respect from other editors contributing to this project. : -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about the article content? Do you think that the place names used should exactly mirror those written on the signs, or not? Shufflee (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point of view. These issues all too easily escalate into "edit wars". -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In the first instance we should follow the MOS - See WP:RJL. Martinvl (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We need to remove Windsor from J13 then, and put Hounslow alongside Staines-upon-Thames and London (west). Who is going to volunteer to check the signs for all the other thirty-plus junctions? Martin did I see you with your hand up? ;-) Shufflee (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you spotted it, why don't you put it right - that is what Wikipedia is all about (provided that you follow the WP:MOS and its sub-articles). As a guideline, I suggest that you first look at CRBD, and if you see any discrepancies, cross-check with "reliable" sites such as viamichelin or The AA. Martinvl (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just done it for J13. Shufflee (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please justify the use of "Staines-on-Thames". AS per WP:RJL, you shoudl be using the names as thezy appear on the road signs and the picture above quite clearly shows "Staines". Until the Highways Agency choose to change the roads signs, please stick with "Staines". Martinvl (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the current name of the town. WP:RLJ doesn't say you have to use the abbreviations, out-of-date names or shortened forms of names as used for space reasons or historical reasons on road signs. Or do you also think we should replace "London (west)" with "London (W)" as the sign clearly shows that too? Shufflee (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and just follow the accepted practice. Martinvl (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is that practice documented and what does it say about the use of name changes that occurred since the signs were erected? I don't imagine that it says to ignore them and carry on regardless. Does it say use "(west)" if the sign says "(W)"? I think we should respect the wishes of the people of Staines when it comes to the name of their town, and not look for excuses to frustrate them. But to be honest, I don't think I can match your determination to prove yourself right over this. :-0 Shufflee (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Shufflee is clearly not going to replace "Staines-on-Thames" with "Staines", so I have done it. If the people of Staines want their town to be called "Staines on Thames" on the M25 signs, it is up to them to contact teh Highways Agency. Until then, the shortened version stays, just as we have "Kingston", not "Kingston-on-Thames" and "Hull", not "Kingston-upon-Hull". Martinvl (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Darling Martin (and apparently Gareth too), you know and I know that the signs will probably never be changed. That doesn't negate the fact that the town name has changed though. WP:RJL, or whatever it is called, doesn't say that the article can only use the precise form of words used on the signs though does it, just that the same places must be listed. How do you account for the "W"/"west" discrepancy with your reading of it? Shufflee (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Orbital wording

Hello - sorry this is written in extreme haste. Briefly: this morning I reverted an edit in which the user wanted to remove the word "Orbital" on the grounds that it is not a true orbital motorway because of the A-road Dartford Crossing. I feel strongly that this was not correct: the article already explains very clearly that it is not a continuous motorway ring, and the word Orbital is used freely for this road, both in the article as explained and in the world outside, thus bringing in WP:COMMONNAME too. I feel that this was a major change in the wording that would need to reach consensus here first; I would, natch, oppose it were it suggested as I feel it is wholly unjustified. Sorry it's a bit curt, no offence meant; I'm juggling (incompetently) here! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Concur.

See the article's history – today's date –

(cur | prev) 08:36, July 3, 2012‎ Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,542 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Re- previous edit summary: I agree with DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ... of course it is "orbital" and should be referred to as such here. "Ring road", really! +para break added to clarify meaning of "It") (undo)

That's it: "End of story".

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Everbody calls it an orbital motorway in practice if not legally it goes all the way round so no need to remove the description "orbital". MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Footers in Junction lists

Driver location sign

A dispute has broken out between an IP-user and me as to how readers should be notified that the kilometre reading in the road junction lists are the actual readings that are visible to readers. The rationale behind this is that UK drivers expect everything to be in miles and could be taken by surprise to find that the distances shown on driver location signs (which are highly visible - see image on right of a driver location sign on the M27) are in kilometres. The use of kilometres rather than miles violates the principle of least astonishment. In my view, it is better that readers be exposed to this when they are sitting at their computers rather than sitting at the steering wheel. For this reason I have been including the text "Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway." The IP-user has been removing that text. We have both had an edit-warring warning. What do other editors feel. Martinvl (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is astonishing, in my view, that s/he would want to remove a straight-forward, informative piece-of-advice from the articles.
I fully endorse their inclusion on our motorway articles ... no, more than that ... I insist that they are replaced and maintained –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 08:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the IP editor's behaviour is catastrophic. I do not in any way deny their right to want to change things and to improve the encyclopaedia. What I detest, though, is the single-issue-crusader approach in which an editor decides that Something Is Wrong And Must Be Fixed and goes off and makes the same edit across 963 articles without any discussion. If they are an experienced editor then they should know better; if they are not, then they need it explaining to them that this is not the way to behave. I know that most of us here are probably somewhere on some spectrum or another but, blimey, when someone edits that dysfunctionally I wonder it they should be editing at all. How can they be SO insensitive as to not see what they are doing, and that their one-issue thing is just splashing all over the careful work of many others? It cheeses me off. I feel that people should never, but never, start on a crusade like this without consensus; and that that consensus should be reached if possible at the appropriate project page or similar. The >Any editor wanting mass changes has to be honest and say "I want to change/remove/whatever every appearance of (whatever), what do you think?" To just launch in like this is I feel disruptive, dishonest, disingenuous: not good, in summary. I've seen it so many times and it's very depressing. Every change of this type by this editor should be reverted without further discussion and they should be forced back to an appropriate forum to discuss what they want to do. If they achieve consensus for it - great! Really, seriously, that's great. Then they can just put it in the edit summary ("removing X per discussion at Y") - it gives so much more strength and support to what they want to do. But without it, it's just a mess. It may or may not be a good change (I personally don't like it but so what?) but to make it over a range of articles needs consensus. Revert revert. No offence meant, best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Struck some intemperate comments.DBaK (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! DBaK. — Totally agree with all that.
I have put my slant on this issue above.
Of course, the old wrangle over our still using miles/gallons rather than kilometres/litres related to our driving in the UK will continue to raise tempers –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl: the articles in question already make it very clear to readers that "the kilometre reading in the road junction lists are the actual readings that are visible to readers", with this note at the bottom of each junction list: "Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts".

Gareth: Wikipedia has a policy of presenting the neutral point of view and presenting information in miles in UK-related road articles. The junction lists have a column of miles and a column for km. A note at the top, and another at the bottom of each junction table already point out that the km values are from the roadside marker posts.

BBaK: I share your distaste of the single-issue-crusader approach, which is why I reverted the crusading pov-push edits that Martinvl, an editor who has been in trouble before, and involved in many acrimonious discussions before, for doing similar things in other articles, including those related to allegations of his gaming the system to push metrication into articles related to the Falkland Islands. Recently he has started to visit each motorway article in turn, and, without any discussion at all, adding blatantly anti-mile messages to them. It is that that I removed.

The pov-push edits that I was responding to were these in which transparently anti-mile content was added to the already adequate information: M25, M2, M54, M48, M45, M27, M3, M26, M42, M23, M18.

Let's recap. The motorway junction lists already have a note at the top, and some two notes; with one at the bottom too, explaining that the km numbers are from the roadside posts. If they are also to now have an extra note conveying thinly-veiled anti-mile usage POV, a discussion on the wording for that needs to be held first. 212.183.128.207 (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is that of verifiability. In the case of road distance markers, it is axiomatic that to satisfy verifiability, the kilometre values must be mentioned - those are the values that are posted around the English motorways (See picture above). Miles are an optional extra, but because every other distance sign on British roads in miles, we must follow the principal of principle of least astonishment. Maybe a review of how we convey this information to readers is appropriate, but whatever we write, it must be crystal clear that if the readers wishes to correlate what we write with what is on the motorway, then he must discard the British habit of ignoring the kilometre values, otherwise he will not be able to make the correlation when he is driving. My own view is that we should discard all the other reminders about kilometres, write the miles column in italics so that it is drawn to the attention of the reader and explain in the footnote that the values in italics are not displayed on the motorway. Martinvl (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The source of the numbers is already adequately spelt out, without the redundant note. How many times in one table do we need to say the same thing?

And talking about verifiability, how can readers verify that the numbers on the posts are actually kilometres, because, as we see in the photo above, the units are not declared on the posts or signs. Surely we need to remove "km" from the table and replace it with something like "DLS label" or "MP label", or similar without introducing OR such as "km". 212.183.140.3 (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear - if I have stumbled in and had a go at the wrong person, or half of the right people, or some variant thereof, then I apologise. I'd stick by my opposition to editing sprees without consensus, obviously, and I'd love to know where's the best place to reach this consensus - UK Roads or something? - or does it already exist perhaps? we need an agreed practice for all these articles, clearly, and I'm not clear whether this talk page, or somewhere further up the food chain, is more appropriate. Sorry if I was rude to anyone. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No probs. See my proposal below, to understand exactly, and all, that I am trying to do. 212.183.140.3 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

My current proposal is to both:

• Retain the note at the top of the table as it is today:
  "Data from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from..."
• To replace this note at the bottom of the table:
  "Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts. Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway. Where a junction spans several hundred metres and the data is available, both the start and finish values for the junction are shown."
  with this one:
  "Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts. Where a junction spans several hundred metres and the data is available, both the start and finish values for the junction are shown."

And thus removing the one, POV sensitive and redundant sentence, this one: "Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway"212.183.140.3 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

24 hours on, and no objections, or any comments at all. Let's do it then. 212.183.140.38 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Random comment: most junction lists in the United States have been displaying both miles and kilometers for almost an entire year. --Rschen7754 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Junction 5

On the Junctions list it says that you can access M26 Eastbound fron junction 5 on the M25 Anticlockwise and not clockwise. This is the exact opposite, and also to access A21 (S) from M25 Clockwise. See Link. This image is on the M26 Eastbound beginning just after the M25 uses a slip road.Kentm (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi User:Cobhama, Please don't invent your own language - the DfT vocabulary is taken from a British Standard. You use of the word "divides" hides the fact that the M25 through route uses connector roads to get from one main carriageway to the other - known to road geeks as a "TOTSO" - "Turn Off To Stay On". There used to be a Wikipedia artcile TOTSO, but it was deleted, but not before theDutch article and German article were written. Martinvl (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Invent my own language! From someone who appears to believe that obscure DfT jargon, even if taken from a British Standard, takes precedence over plain English, and then uses phrases such as 'grade separated junction' and TOTSO? Unbelievable. Why use special words or expressions that might be difficult for others to understand when there are plenty of alternative ways of saying the same thing using plain English? Cobhama (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you intend editing road and motorway articles here, I would suggest you familiarise yourself first with expressions such as grade separation which you do not appear to have heard before. –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you suppose that me doing that will help other readers from across the English speaking world understand the DfT jargon, even if it is taken from a British Standard? Cobhama (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you are being absurd –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 11:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to weigh in on this recent debate a sense of duty to explain is required in articles on major national topics such as the West Coast Main Line and it is acceptable to use common jargon for railways there, just as it is for roads here. Please go to the trouble to explain meanings in footnotes (not references) where users have complained or indeed in brackets into plain English if the jargon is often explained in government or quasi-government publications. As to the wording of why Junction 5 deserves special mention you will see from my re-write it is far clearer how this junction operates and why it meets notability. I would merely ask you to compare American freeways for all kinds of plain English to describe roads, and to avoid using pure Anglo-norman administrativese when describing how lanes work. Adam37 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that Adam37's wording was clearer. Also, what "Anglo-norman administrativese" does he find objectionable. For the record, the wording "Main carriageway" is the wording shown on British road signs. Martinvl (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The terse and legalese language used on road signs can hardly be described as plain, or even common, English. We can, indeed must, do better than that, Also, we need to explain why j5 is given a whole paragraph, yet the other 30 junctions are not even mentioned, in the description section. Cobhama (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Foul play?

I would like to object to the actions of two editors on this article. They are ganging up against me, and threatening me with being blocked from editing because I have objected to their insistence that incomprehensible jargon that was only added about 7 hours ago must be left in place, and that if I don't like it, the onus is on me to raise a discussion about it, but I must not remove it. Obviously I don't want to break any rules, but I'm not sure that what they are doing is legitimate. Can anyone help me here please. Cobhama (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The way forward and to avoid edit warring, is to make your proposal here on the talk page and allow the community to discuss your proposal. Clearly two editors have already objected so discussion here is really the only solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The M25 executes what is known by certain road enthusiast geeks as a "TOTSO" (Turn Off To Stay On) (See List of road-related terminology). User:Cobhama’s originally objected to the use of the word “slip-road”, but in his wording he went to the opposite extreme and removed any indication that one had to actually branch off the main carriageway to continue following the M25. All that I did was to reinstate the concept of the TOTSO, but by using wording from the DfT glossary and in particular to replace the word "slip road" with the word "connector road". Martinvl (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we just give Cobhama a chance to explain what he wants it to say and why? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

When I first arrived at the article it contained a confusing and misleading description of junction 5, suggesting that M25 drivers had to use slip-roads to continue their journey. At first I deleted that paragraph as nonsense, which it was. But then, after realising that the purpose of the paragraph was to describe how the traffic route through that junction differed subtly from all other junctions on the motorway, I reworded it. I avoided the misleading connotations of the term slip-road, and after a couple of cycles involving two other editors (one of whom seemed reluctant to drop the slip-road term) the paragraph settled into something which was quite clear.

Then, some time later, the editor who had previously repeatedly restored the slip-road term, rewrote the paragraph in its entirety, not only using specialist jargon which would be difficult for others to understand, but also changing it so that it was no longer describing how the junction flow differed from that at others, but more as if it was an exercise to attempt to fit as many highway engineering terms, from a newly discovered glossary of such terms, into a single sentence as possible.

The resultant paragraph was what I objected to. It had been unilaterally and discourteously dropped into the article in place of the paragraph evolved by the three of us collaborating, and without any discussion and with no sympathy or synergy with what was there before. And then, when I attempted to restore the collaborative paragraph, both he and another editor acted as a tag-team to frustrate my efforts and then to both accuse me of making the undiscussed changes (changes to the undiscussed and incomprehensible addition)!

I see that that other editor has now made another (undiscussed) change to that paragraph - using more words from those he has copied and pasted into a glossary from his newly found highway engineering manual.

If standard English can be used and jargon avoided then why not? Cobhama (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Which items of jargon do you not understand? I think that "main carriageway" and "connector roads" are self-explanatory. If you use other words you risk compromising the interity of the article as happened whren you used the word "split". I think that User talk:Cobhama is confusing "jargon" and "concise language". To put this into perspective, the term "SLR Camera" is jargon, but the term "Single-lens reflex camera" is concise language. Concise language is usually standard Englosh. Martinvl (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironic typo. I don't agree that SLR camera is "jargon", it's an abbreviation. You wouldn't consider BBC News to be jargon, would you? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree.
... but back to the matter in hand, I like this version by Martinvl very much. Just right, in my opinion.
Cheers –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph, or should that be mega-sentence (64 words in total with no full-stop ) is still confusing and imprecise, and inaccurate. Where is the evidence that the M25 was ever known as the "A25 relief road"; the quotation marks suggest that to be a direct quote from somewhere, from where? Cobhama (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded the paragraph and have clarified the citation. Are you happy now? Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The first mega-sentence (47 words) of that additional, still undiscussed, change belongs in the history section along with the other descriptions of the planning evolution. And where does the "A25 relief road" quote come from? And why does that quote link to an article which does not mention an A25 relief road at all? The second sentence, although still unclear, could be tweaked to describe (this is the description section don't forget) what it is about junction 5 that makes it different from any of the other 30, or so, junctions. Cobhama (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved (and reworded slightly for the sake of accuracy and clarity) the history to the history section and re-described j5. How does that look? Cobhama (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In dumbing the language down, you have removed clarity. I have restored it and ensured that every bit of techincal language is wikilinked - this is what Wikipedia is all about what little technical language is language that appears on UK roadsigns - in particular the phrase "main carraigeway" appears on signs 7231, 7232 and 7261 in Schedule 12 of the TSRGD (Also see TSRGD). Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Martinvl (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You completely removed the point of that paragraph though, which was to describe that j5 is different from all the other junctions. Or were you going to explain the alignment and characteristics of each of the other 30 junctions too for consistency? Cobhama (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your petulant, stubborn attitude will serve you only ill-feeling from established editors. Your editing history demonstrates a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Editor Martinvl's version is an accurate and encyclopaedic one and has the support of the other involved editors. It is best to walk away –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 06:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, thanks to my perseverance, we at least have a comprehensible paragraph, but I can't believe how vehemently resistant you are to adding context to it. It needs context to integrate it into the section as a whole. It currently stands out in like a sore thumb. Readers will wonder why, in the middle of the description section, there is such a detailed description of the layout of just junction 5, and of no other of the 30 junctions. It needs context to make it clear that it is subtly different from the rest, as it did have originally. Read the section as if you were a new reader to see my point, and stop being so obstructive, this is supposed to be a collaborative effort to create informative and enjoyable content, not a battle to exclude content because you don't like the attitude of its contributor. Grow up. Cobhama (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you spend more time commenting on the content, and not asking other editors to "grow up".... I think Gareth will agree that he's plenty "grown up"....! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you only read the last two words of my last post, missing my lengthy comments on the content? Cobhama (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but please don't use Wikipedia to directly insult other editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you tell Gareth off for making his his insulting remarks, the ones I was reacting too? Cobhama (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not my job to do that. Now get on with discussing the content, not the contributor, this is becoming terribly dull. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it your job to tell me off because you thought I was insulting other editors? Cobhama (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me put another slant on things. Some years ago there was an article on Wikipedia TOTSO. This article was removed in 2009 – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOTSO. I tried to restore it, but failed. My text is here. As a result of this discussion, I tried to avoid using the word “TOTSO”. For the record, the word “TOTSO” is catalogued in List of road-related terminology.

Project importance

Perhaps a naive question, but why is this article of "high" importance to the East Anglia project and "low" to the Kent and Hertfordshire project? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Another inconsistency. Well done that man for pointing it out!
The influence is, if not equal which is my view, then of greater importance to the counties than to the East Anglia region. Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 11:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Junction 5 in the description section

Why is there a detailed description of the layout of junction 5, but of no other of the 30 junctions in the description section?

I thought the reason was because it is subtly different to all the others, in that unlike the others, the M25 route does not follow the mainline through that junction. And that characteristic is only apparent to motorists because they have to take the left-hand branch at the junction diverge, whereas they take the right-hand branch at the diverges of all other junctions to stay on the M25 route.

If this is the reason that it alone is described, then I think we should add that as context to the description. If that isn't the reason, then we need to explain the reason. On the other hand, if there is no reason, then we probably need to describe the layouts of all of the other junctions too for consistency. Cobhama (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The layout of Junction 5 has its quirks, but no more than any other junction - what is different is that to stay on the M25 you have to leave the main carriageway. In the United Kingdom, one always leaves the main carriageway of a motorway on the left so emphasising it at this point is no more than teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Martinvl (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The quirk of j5 which singles it out from the other junctions on the M25 is its layout. To describe in detail the layout, but not to mention that it is unique or why it is explained in such detail is ridiculous. Your assertion that it is unnecessary to mention that is absurd because it relies on the risky assumption that all readers are familiar with the layout of junctions on British motorways. Not forgetting that although it is unique on the M25 in this respect, there are other junctions on other UK motorways with similar requirements. Cobhama (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

More than 24 hours now, and no challenge to my rationale for explaining how it differs from the others. Can I therefore assume that everyone interested now accepts what I'm saying, and that I can now add it to the article without being accused of edit warring again? Cobhama (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No. What needs to be added to ... At Junction 5, the clockwise carriageway of the M25 is routed off the main north-south dual carriageway onto the main east-west dual carriageway with the main north-south carriageway becoming the A21. In the opposite direction, to the east of the point where the M25 diverges from the main east-west carriageway, that carriageway become the M26 motorway ... that would be other than words just for the sake of it?
As Martin puts it succinctly above, "... what is different is that to stay on the M25 you have to leave the main carriageway. In the United Kingdom, one always leaves the main carriageway of a motorway on the left ..." That's enough. It does not require more. Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 20:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gareth. I'm sure you can support that 'no' with a reasoned explanation, and you're not just saying it to be obstreperous. Please try to convince me why we should describe the layout of j5 without giving context for _why_ we are describing it but not all the other junctions too. Cobhama (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think readers, especially those unfamiliar with UK motorway norms and terminology, or even unfamiliar with the term motorway, will think - huh, so what; and why did they only tell me that about j5 and nothing about how j1, j2, j3,... j30 work? Cobhama (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If the person reading the article was not familiar with UK motorway terms, they could very quickly work them out from the context in which they are used or they could follow the Wikilink to a description of the term. Also, if a person does not know what the term term "mnotorway" means when they see in the article's infobox probably does not have a driving licence. Moreover that type of symbol appears at the entrance to every motorway in Europe and also on any other motorway that adhere to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (Also see Comparison of European road signs). Martinvl (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You couldn't make it up - could you! What has whether they have a driving licence, or whether they know the significance of a motorway sign, in a country driving on the left, got to do with anything? Why not simply briefly say how the junction is unique? It's be better to leave it out altogether than to leave it in with no context or reason. Cobhama (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

How are the readers supposed to know that if we don't put it in the article - that's what I'm saying! That's almost exactly what I added and what was then removed, and you are now arguing not to add. Please make your mind up - do you want that explained, or not, and if not, why not!

And, why don't you put your responses, the ones in reply to mine, after mine - so that it makes sense for anyone else to read later, rather than all together further up the page and out of context with the discussion? Cobhama (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, please remember, as I'm sure you're aware, there is no deadline here. We can wait a couple of weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rambling. Why wait if there is no objection? Presumably, if someone turns up in the future and doesn't see why we should explain the context, they can edit it out, again. And why do I have to wait to add my content, where Martinvl was to allowed to destroy rewrite the whole paragraph without any discussion or explanation at all? Cobhama (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice now, well after having chosen to edit this article for deficiencies having identified a few in the M11 article, not least poor wording and a misleading diagram encouraging widening of all of that motorway, that J5 prompted three sections of arguing without real drive toward CONSENSUS, say by having a vote. Please will users say whether they believe my attempt to use plain English, including in the section that narrates the debated junction should stay? Keep this? I obviously support this. Adam37 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The version arrived at, after much discussion here, should not have been removed without the consensus of interested editors (not "users") –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the description of j5 needs improving. The current version was imposed _without_ consensus. I tried to discuss its problems and improvements, as you can see, but my criticisms have not been adequately answered, and my attempts at improvement have bee spurned. Let's try and sort this mess out now. Cobhama (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

J10 Destination list

I have realigned the destination list for junction to reflect those shown on the main carriageway. The M25 Anti-clockwise shows London(SW), Guildford and Kingston while the M25 Clockwise shows London (SW & C), Portsmouth & Guildford. Martinvl (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Why only show those destinations shown on the main carriageway? And why not show the same for both directions as both slip-roads arrive at the same roundabout and thus all destinations are available from both directions? Cobhama (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Until we can decide whether to add destinations not shown on the main carriageway, or indeed whether to show all of those shown on the main carriageway, I'll restore those which ARE shown on the Google views of the main carriageways. On the main carriageway of the M25 clockwise we can clearly see Wisley RHS Gardens, Sandown Park and Hampton Court Palace, whilst on the M25 anticlockwise we can also see Chessington World of Adventures. Cobhama (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading stats

Just to clarify: the 2007 source I have cited confirms that the western stretch is the busiest stretch of motorway in the country and on an annual average (which of course includes the weekends) the per day figure is considerably lower than the heaviest traffic day cited from 2003. Some of the other distances and terms given were vague which did not therefore conform with the Manual of Style. The plaintive style overall was clear from adjectives used, and conflicted with WP:NPOV before my latest edit. Adam37 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Numbers of counties, and linkage

Hi. I undid three edits from 81.159.88.77 (and then restored one removing an unwanted capital) but I'd like to discuss them.

Number of counties

Changed from six to seven and back. What are we counting here? Should be easy...

Linkage in the junctions table

I restored a link to the A3 on the right hand side of the table. Looking at it again, I now wonder if that was right. Is there a set of rules regarding how this table is linked? If so, I am not quite getting it. Please enlighten me.

Cheers, DBaK (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M25 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090719090854/http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/capacityrequirements/dartfordrivercrossing/chap1execsummary.pdf to http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/capacityrequirements/dartfordrivercrossing/chap1execsummary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M25 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111003091431/http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/01/highways_agency_calls_for_m25_widening_bids_to_be_resubmitted.html to http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/01/highways_agency_calls_for_m25_widening_bids_to_be_resubmitted.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)