Talk:Concurrency (road)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lapping

Another term (possibly very obscure) - "lapping" [2] --SPUI (T - C) 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Other Terms

Concurrency is not the only term used by state road departments and the like, however. For example, I believe the technical term in California is shared alignment (although considering Caltrans'--and the legislature's?--apparent disdain for giving two or more numbers to a road, I'm surprised there's any official term at all). In Oregon, ODOT uses the term common with, which sounds like an informal marriage arrangement.

No wonder roadgeeks prefer the term multiplex. 4.243.206.19 05:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to overlap (road)?

In my (admittedly limited) studies, I have encountered the word "overlap" more than "concurrency". This word is also easier to conjugate - you can say that Routes 1 and 2 overlap, but saying they concur sounds wrong, and usually on Wikipedia I see "runs concurrent with". --NE2 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few sources for "concurrent with": [3] I still think overlap is a better article title, because it's much more common. --NE2 06:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I had never heard overlap used in regards to roads until I saw it here, so I think different regions (and different DOTs) use different terms. So I see no real reason to change it, both terms are fine. Just like we wouldn't change an article title in British English to American English, I don't think we should change based on different regions using different terms. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you find an example of current usage of concurrent/concurrency by a highway agency? --NE2 18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Which do you want? The one more commonly used or the one more officially used? --Holderca1 ^talk 16:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The one more commonly used by officials :) --NE2 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well here is at least one such use of concurrent by TXDOT. [4]. Actually, here is a google search of the TXDOT designation files: [5], there are no such uses of overlap. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:14, 5 December 2007(UTC)

Thank you. --NE2 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move to a descriptive title?

I can't say that I've ever heard the term "concurrency" refer to this concept. If the term is used by highway agencies, that's not justification for its use, since Wikipedia is not written for government employees, but the general public. It's the same reason we don't use the term "multiplex" as its a term only used by a particular group (road geeks) and is completely foreign to the general public. As someone who lives near a notable case of this, the U.S. Route 50/U.S. Route 301 multiplex/overlap/concurrency/"that thing where they're using the same road", I know of a few things that the general public does call this situation. When giving directions, I've heard people say things like "right now 50 and 301 are merged, they split about 10 miles from here" or "50 and 301 run together for another 10 miles" or "50 and 301 are the same road until they split in about 10 miles". In other words, the general public doesn't really use a word for this, so they describe it instead. So perhaps a descriptive title would be the best way to go for this article, something such as Merged numbered highways or Overlapping numbered highways. Thoughts?-Jeff ^(talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding the terminology "Multiplex"

As per WP:NEO I have tried to reword articles to avoid the term "multiplex" wherever possible, since it's a neologism that's really only used by the road geek community; in fact the word "multiplex" is often linked to this article, as if it is expected that the reader may not understand the term. It's often used somewhat sloppily too, inconsistently used in such different forms as "multiplexes", "has a multiplex with", "is multiplexed"; when it's much easier and more natural to just say "overlaps", "runs concurrently with", "joins", etc. Certainly the neologism should be explained on this page, but I think the term should be avoided everywhere else in favor of "concurrency" or "overlap". Krimpet 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiplex isn't a "made-up" word! It's an English language word with a meaning that can be used for any such circumstance; hence its use in telecommunications for multiple signals across a single channel, or the use at cinemas for multiple screenings at a single building. I think it's a bit rich to simply "ban" the word and deride it as "roadgeek" jargon (besides, "roadgeek" is itself a US-centric made-up word). At worst the use of the term "multiplex" falls into the category of "using more complicated words than necessary"; not a position Wikipedia should be supporting (we don't need to dumb things down just because a lot of people these days have trouble reading or have a limited vocabulary). zoney ♣ talk 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When used with roads, it is a "made-up" word. --NE2 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Only in the sense that any word can be considered to be "made up" at least at some time in its existence. (Concurrency itself is arguably an example of this.) Given that a number of other terms are used, either officially or unofficially, for this situation (e.g., Oregon legally defines a concurrency as "common with"), I don't see any problem with including at least a mention of multiplex in this article. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Greensboro example out of date?

Having just driven past the location where I'm fairly confident that sign used to exist, I think it has been at least partially resolved following the relatively recent completion of the Greensboro interchanges. Good thing, it was an abomination. I guess the photo can be kept there for historical purposes. -- 65.5.198.181 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is outdated now. It doesn't change anything on the validity of the example; it still carries 6 routes. The only thing that has changed is I-40 is now Business 40. I have a picture of the same sign group from three days ago (29 August) with a Green 40 sign now mounted, I just haven't seen a reason to upload it yet. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the only things they have changed are the reassurance shields. Nearly all overhead signage (with the exception of I-40/85 east of Greensboro) still refers to Business 40 as I-40 (including I-85 north/40 east approaching the east split). Just haven't had time (money?) to fix it yet I guess. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Update just in case anybody's wondering: that sign is now correct again as far as I-40/Business 85 shields go, but now there is no US 421. --MPD ^{T / C} 07:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious on wrong way concurrencies with the SAME road

"At least two roads run concurrently with their own opposite direction. A short stretch of Broadway in Pawtucket, Rhode Island carries both directions of Route 114[dubious – discuss], and a short stretch of northbound Interstate 279, as well as the ramps leading to it, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania carries both directions of U.S. Route 19 Truck."

I believe the Rhode Island one I'm sure is simply a typo in their route log. Has anyone ever tried to verify this information. If its true, get a source. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As per the end of the long footnote of the Route 114 Wikipedia article, "it is well-defined in the 2001 edition of the Pavement Log kept by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. As of July 2005 the signage in the vicinity is very spotty and offers no evidence to dispute the pavement log and, in some cases, the little signage that does exist actually seems to support it." That seems to confirm it. However, as per the same note, there is an alternate routing listed by the city DPW, where 114N does not turn from Exchange to Broadway, but continues on Exchange, which is a more direct routing. I suspect that the original routing had 114N never turn off school, and continue to the end of school, left on Broadway/Main. That would avoid the whole messy loop to the northeast, whether it runs down Exchange or not. The worg way concurrency is probably an intergral part of this diversion of School, as it brings 114N back to the end of School, one block from the divertive loop. The longer length on Exchange per city DPW was probably a later attempt to remove some of the loop, but one never adopted by the state DOT. Dovid (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but this entire section needs a chainsaw taken to it, IMO. Three consecutive paragraphs list examples of this in somebody's home town. The 3rd paragraph has the nerve to start with "For example" as if the 2 previous paragraphs of examples didn't exist. OK we get it, one good example is enough, the article doesn't need to list EVERY INSTANCE in Chickenpoop, New Jersey to ratcrap, Arizona.Dave (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and took out the crap ones. The "third paragraph" was there before (the Interstate 77/81 one) and was moved down and not edited when the two paragraphs before it were inserted. I removed a lot of crap from the old "Wrong-way concurrency" article. Basically, it had to be more than a few miles to be in that list there, and we don't have that kind of space here. Interstates: good examples. High-traffic major highways (US 29/220/421 I-40/B-85 freeway in Greensboro, some others) COULD be notable. City blocks, I'd say no. Truck routes (I-85/TRK NC 86 eg), I'd say no. Short US routes on significant expressways/freeways (US 29/501 in Lynchburg, VA), probably not. But I agree with you, Dave. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Intersate Concurrency Exit Numbers/Mile-markers

What is the rule for the exit numbers/mile markers when there are two interstates that are multiplexed? Here in Lexington, I-64/I-75 are multiplexed for a few miles and it uses the I-75 mile markers and exit numbers on the stretch of highway. Also in Northern Kentucky, I-75 and I-71 are multiplexed, and again, the road keeps I-75 exit numbers. However, in Western Cincinnati, the 3 mile stretch that I-74 and I-275 are concurrent it uses I-74's exit numbers.

I am thinking it is based on which highway has the greater number and all regular routes over spur, or maybe a "which one was there first" rule. Does anyone have any info on this? It would be nice to include it in the main article. Thanks. -KnightCrusader 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the mileage and exit markers go with the highway with the lower number, which makes sense in urban areas, where you might have a concurrency between a 2di and a 3di. Since 3di's are supposed to be auxiliaries, loops, spurs, etc., while 2di's (and 1di's) are the mainline, such a prioritization makes sense. However, where two 2di's meet (e.g., I-90 and I-15 in Montana), prioritizing for one or the other may be more difficult to justify. (In the example cited, I believe I-15's exit numbers are used, even though the concurrency is mainly in I-90's direction, i.e., east-west.) 76.21.8.213 (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Typically, when a 2di and 3di meet, they follow the mileage of the 2di (an exception being I-465/74 around Indy, where they follow I-465, and probably some others). When 2dis merge, it seems mostly that it's the higher number (I-70/76, I-80/90, I-20/59, I-64/81, I-77/81, I-64/95, I-40/85, etc), but there are some exceptions- I-40/73 around Greensboro followed I-40 exits, until I-40 was routed off of that route, and I-15/80 in Salt Lake City follows I-15 exit numbers (I-15/84, I-15/90, I-35/44, also do use the lower route, and I-55/64/70 follow 64 for the one exit they have together(?)). I-40/Business 85 through Greensboro uses the Business 85 mile markers because Business 85 replaced I-85 (that's interesting, huh?). I think it depends on the DOT, so sourcing it would be hard because it seems to just be whatever they want. --MPD ^{T / C} 07:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet *another* reason why Mile-mark exit numbering is a Very Bad Idea...
-- baylink@en.w

Wouldn't that issue arise under ANY system of numbering exits? XinaNicole (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Concurrency Extreme

In the article, has anyone thought of adding the extreme concurrency of I-74/465/US 31/36/52/421/Indiana State Route 37/57 in Indianapolis, Indiana? It has 8 routes, and it may eventually have 9, if Interstate 69's extension is routed onto it!

Allen 10:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There are currently two portions of I-465 that have a seven-way concurrency:

From Exit 2 eastbound to Exit 49 [including Exits 53 and 52], the roadway carries I-465, I-74, US 31, US 36, US 40, IN 37 and IN 67.

From Exit 49 northbound to Exit 47, the roadway carries I-465, US 31, US 36, US 40, US 421, IN 37 and IN 67.

There is currently one eight-way stretch:

From Exit 47 northbound to Exit 46, the roadway carries I-465, US 31, US 36, US 40, US 52, US 421, IN 37 and IN 67.

The eventual I-69 extension will pass through all three stretches, increasing each concurrency by one.

Robb 07:45 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.165.121 (talk)

Can someone add the extreme amount of concurrencies along U.S. Route 1 in Georgia? For a stretch, the road is US 1/23/301/GA 4/15/23/121 (and may have more Georgia state routes that I may have forgotten about. Also, there are many other concurrencies along U.S. Route 1 that could be added as an example of an extreme number of concurriences along one highway.

Thank you.

Allen (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The article already states:

I-465 around Indianapolis currently has the most concurrent routes. Portions of the 53-mile (85 km) highway overlap with I-74, US 31, US 36, US 40, US 52, US 421, SR 37 and SR 67—a total of eight other routes.^[8] Seven of the eight other designations overlap between exits 46 and 47 to create an eight-way concurrency.^[9]

but if you'd like to add the US 1 example, be bold and do so, but know that at some point, it will have to be removed if I-69 is, in fact, routed along the section of I-465 in question. Just make sure to have a map or other source to verify the addition. Imzadi 1979 → 23:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Table

How about entering information in tabular form. More columns would need to be added, of course. Just a thought.

State	City	Routes	Length (mi.)	Remarks
Dual Concurrencies
Pennsylvania		I-99 US 220		Entire length of I-99
Michigan		I-194 M-66		Entire length of I-194
Quadruple Concurrencies
Missouri	St.Louis	US 12, US 14 US 18, US 151		Beltline south of the city

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.235.111 (talk) 09:23, August 11, 2012‎ (UTC)

There are too many concurrencies out there to start documenting them like that. A table would only encourage people to add every concurrency, when the prose just lists particular examples to help explain. So no, I don't think a table is wise. Imzadi 1979 → 18:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Multiplex" redux

I thought that it was decided long ago to root out the word "multiplex" in this instance (see above). It was created by participants of a Usenet group when there wasn't a readily-available term to describe it, all the while when there were many used by official agencies. In fact, it's still difficult to find the term in this context which isn't either on WP or on a website related to one of those participants. If it's removed from the article body, it won't disappear completely, since it's all over m-plex.com, naturally, which is used in multiple sources and listed as an EL. As it stands, the statement containing it implies that it is more widespread than it actually is, implying that it's being regularly used by any road hobbyist, not just those who were reading misc.transport.road in the late 1990s and their contemporary or later associates. Mapsax (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was decided that multiplex was a neologism and as such, shouldn't be used here. I, for one, prefer overlap to concurrency or multiplex simply because the concept of two things overlapping (highway routes in this case) is easier to grasp than two things being concurrent or being multiplexed. –Fredddie™ 15:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see now. It's fine to explain it once here, but to use it in other articles is not a good idea. –Fredddie™ 16:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Use it once, because the term is in use out there, but that's it. To remove it is to deny any recognition at all that it's used, which is false. Imzadi 1979 → 17:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

All neologisms are used. It's not WP's job to explain the meaning of a neologism that one might encounter, it's that of the creator(s), and I think with the ELs that I mentioned above that all the bases are covered. Mapsax (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Added: After thinking about it, I guess that the best way to put it is that I'd be more willing to accept its identification in the text of the article if it was widely used on anything but self-published websites. Mapsax (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This article has value not merely for hobbyists

An editor has suggested that the article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. It is also suggested that this article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience.

As a traffic engineer with over 40 years' experience working in Europe and the US, I believe that this is an important topic that creates challenges for map makers, navigation system software writers, and users of such systems. Therefore I welcome its inclusion in Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I agree that it can be improved in various ways.

Peter Davies, www.crc-corp.com Boppet (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Since the editor who placed the hatnotes didn't bother to discuss his/her opinions here, I'm removing them - they reek of drive-by editing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: was the person who placed the hatnotes. Considering the editor has contributed to the article on numerous occasions, it's not a case of drive-by editing. I think it was a fair assessment at the time, which is why I only removed one of the hatnotes (ref improve as references had been improved), but not the other two (fansite and overly detailed). I think the fansite issues have been signficantly reduced, but I think work remains on reducing how overly detailed the article remains. @DavidWBrooks:, what are your thoughts? --hmich176 10:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of vague, style-related hatnotes of the "(X aspect) should be improved" nature - they're so vague, unless accompanied by more specific commentary on the Talk page, that they rarely help. In my judgement they weren't needed any more on this article but, of course, if another editor thinks they are still needed they can be returned - hatnotes are just like any other wikipedia edit.

My experience over the years has been that editors who place vague hatnotes never even notice when they're removed, or at least don't respond. That's a very good indication that they tend to be a substitute for editing, not a spur to editing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Purging the example farm

Most of this article was chock full of examples. I have purged a lot of these examples to simplify the prose down to some illustrative examples. From there, I endeavored to cite as much as possible, however some items still need references.

Going forward, let's keep this article down to a few examples that illustrate the facets of this concept without succumbing to the "this too! this too!" mentality that ballooned the text with superfluous examples. Imzadi 1979 → 03:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Georgia's plethora of concurrencies

Can anything be added about the plethora of concurrencies in Georgia? Every Interstate highway has an unsigned state route designation, every U.S. Highway has at least one state route designation, and the state has -- at minimum -- two concurrencies with seven different highways. Just a thought. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I could see adding a generic mention that in some states (GA, AL, FL, etc), Interstate or US Highways have a second designation assigned, which may or may not be unsigned, but the goal is to keep this article from being overloaded with cruft. Plus, any additions need citations and hopefully what is currently in the article lacking references receives them soon. Imzadi 1979 → 05:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources, ever heard of them?

Most of this article is recitation of facts from primary sources - the references section is about 50% composed of maps, for God's sake. The section about regional examples is not only uncited, but only carries {{cn}} tags for similar facts (road blah in Scotland coexists with other road blah), not for the parts that really need citations ("it is common...", "most...", "usually..."). That speaks volumes.

This article should be burned to the ground and rebuilt in a policy-compliant way if it's to exist at all. — Scott • talk 11:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary-source worship in wikipedia can go overboard, and the above comment is a fine example: When somebody argues that a map showing a relevant fact is less valuable than somebody else writing about the map, then you know that over-literalism has led us astray. Maps are a fine and usable source material for a geographic article. ... This is not to say that other portions of this article are lacking in citations, of course. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change our core content policies, you know where to go. — Scott • talk 14:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to go brush up on them. Primary sources are raw facts. They are perfectly acceptable as a source for those raw facts, and that is all. Secondary sources offer opinions on what the facts mean; this is useless to us in the case of physical measurements or observational fact.

But of course, feel free to add some sources if you know of them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No amount of raw facts substitutes for citable secondary sources. Without those, all you have is a collection of facts masquerading as an article - just like this one. And with that, my interest in this topic is expended. Have fun. — Scott • talk 14:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A raw fact is less valuable than somebody talking about the raw fact - nope, sorry, doesn't work. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Two pieces of misunderstanding are prevalent in the above comments.

1. Maps are secondary sources. The primary sources from which they are distilled are GIS databases, aerial survey photography/satellite photography, on-the-ground surveyor's notes and the like. There is a substantial amount of editorial-type oversight used to generate a map. Will the map show topographic lines? Will it show rivers and lakes? Will the map include political boundaries?
2. People continually confuse WP:Party and person. DOT maps may be first-party secondary sources, but they are still secondary, not primary. A similar map of a state's highway system put together by Rand McNally in an atlas would be a third-party secondary source. Neither changes the fact from #1 above that maps are secondary sources.

At worst, these maps straddle some middle ground between pure primary and pure secondary sources. If you examine their current usage in the article, though, you'll notice that they're citing the existence of specific examples used to illustrate the concept, which is a perfectly appropriate usage for even a primary source. The definition of the term "concurrency" and "overlap" comes from a pair of related secondary sources along with examples of other synonyms sourced from other locations. The removal of US 27 from I-69 and consolidation with US 127 in Michigan is cited to a newspaper source, along with a press release giving MDOT's stated reasons for making the change.

That said, I echo the call. If you have other sources, please speak up or add them. I spent a fair amount of time last night to make sure that each of the North American examples has a citation for it. I also added secondary sources that illustrate that this is a valid term in use. (Esri, the maker of ArcGIS, one of the premier cartographic software uses both "concurrency" and "overlap", for example in their help forums, for example). Maybe we can cut even more of the examples out to minimize the map citations, but when dozens of FAs use maps to source parts of their content, this should not be controversial here to use them to cite geographic examples. Imzadi 1979 → 21:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been skimming the 2009 MUTCD for extra references. Unfortunately, there is no definition for "concurrency" or "overlap" in the definition list in Chapter 1A (nor is there one for "route", for that matter, yet they do find the need to define what a train is). However we do have these (bolding by me):

• §2D.29, ¶02: "Where two or more routes follow the same section of highway..." (information follows about the order route signs should be mounted)
• §2D.29, ¶08: "If engineering judgment indicates that groups of assemblies that include overlapping routes or multiple turns might be confusing..." (information follows about omitting signs where they might overwhelm the driver)
• §2D.30, ¶01: "The Junction assembly shall be installed in advance of every intersection where a numbered route is intersected or joined by another route."
• Figure 2D-6 illustrates how concurrencies should be signed, graphically.

There might be more relevant information in subsequent chapters that I overlooked, but that seems to be the bulk of it. We don't get a clear definition or consistent terminology, but that might be helpful to illustrate that the concept exists and is recognized by an official agency, at least. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

UK

We don't usually give roads lots of numbers. One is quite enough. Hence removed most of the unsourced stuff suggesting otherwise. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC).

Exit Numbers/Mile Markers

I would assume the highway whose exit number dominates also has mile marker dominance for the length of the concurrent route. I'd also imagine that after the break in the concurrency, the subordinate route wouldn't pick up again where it left off, but add the miles from the time it joined the dominant highway until the time it split.

So, if dominant Route A and subordinate Route B come together at Route B's 100 mile marker, the observed markers for the concurrence will be for Route A. If they separate after 17 miles, the next Route B mile marker would be 117, making up the unsigned difference not posted when it joined with the dominant Route A. But I don't want to assume. Can this be clarified in the article? I've never seen two sets of mile markers posted together on concurrent highways. 73.194.85.220 (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concurrency (road). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707161957/http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/technical_services/databases/Arkansas_Roadlog_2009.zip to http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/technical_services/databases/Arkansas_Roadlog_2009.zip

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Exit Numbers/Mile Markers

I would assume the highway whose exit number dominates also has mile marker dominance for the length of the concurrent route. I'd also imagine that after the break in the concurrency, the subordinate route wouldn't pick up again where it left off, but add the miles from the time it joined the dominant highway until the time it split.

So, if dominant Route A and subordinate Route B come together at Route B's 100 mile marker, the observed markers for the concurrence will be for Route A. If they separate after 17 miles, the next Route B mile marker would be 117, making up the unsigned difference not posted when it joined with the dominant Route A. But I don't want to assume. Can this be clarified in the article? I've never seen two sets of mile markers posted together on concurrent highways.

...I think this was archived, I'm re-posting. Instead of deleting, can whoever it is that takes issue with my post please say something here on the talk page? Respond, don't remove. You know, it was always a disgrace how self-proclaimed "guardians" would rapidly undo changes to their favorite articles. Now the discussion pages have this problem? What happened to Wikipedia? 73.194.85.220 (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer is in already in the article, and yes, your assumptions are correct. The answer was in the article months ago, even before you posted originally. Imzadi 1979 → 15:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. Where in the article is it? 73.194.85.220 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Look over Concurrency (road)#Effect on exit numbers for your answers. Imzadi 1979 → 23:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

In North America, in English

In North America, in English: There is quite a difference between "highway" and "road". A highway is something major, and usually expensive, such as in the Interstate Highway System and U.S. Highway 41. The word "highway" was chosen deliberately. On the other hand, "roads" exist on a lower level, such as a mere county road and many state roads: for example, County Road 13 somewhere.
To make things very clear, there are plenty of dirt roads here, but there is no such thing as a "dirt highway". Please be careful about your use of the words "highway" and "road": "I was born in the backseat of a Greyhound Bus, rolling down Highway 41." (The Allman Brothers)24.121.195.165 (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted several of the changes made by the IP above because they weren't needed. This article is written for a global and general audience, and in some cases, the changes were contrary to that. The hyper technical distinction being drawn isn't needed in this article, and because county roads may run concurrently, implying that only highways can is false. Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Two follow-on points are in order. The first: in Indiana and Florida, their state highways are called "State Roads", and those roads are just as major/expensive as the state highways in other states. Second, yes, there are dirt highways. They're rare, but they do exist. Not all states have paved all sections of their highway systems. Imzadi 1979 → 19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

pictures of signs

This article has, IMHO, too many pictures of road signs from the US showing wrong-way concurrencies. The introductory photo has one, and there are currently two pictures on the section discussing wrong-way concurrencies. (I removed one, somebody else swapped it with the second, somebody else returned both of them.) Since the text describes the situation that the photo shows, I'd says they're unnecessary. I'd like to remove both of them, leaving the map that actually informs the reader of something, instead of pix just reinforcing what the article already says. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd discount the presence of a wrong-way concurrency in the lead photo as neither the caption nor the lead mentions this fact. So that leaves two photos lower down to illustrate the concepts involved. We have the first that illustrates the first example in the text, and the second that illustrates another example in the text involving a three-way concurrency with a highway that travels in the actual cardinal direction of the road. I say we need to be tweaking the text before we're updating the selection of images. Ideally, we could have a photo and map pairing that show the same example from both vantage points to help illustrate this otherwise unintuitive and contradictory concept. Imzadi 1979 → 19:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's start by tossing out one of the examples of three-way concurrencies from the text; having two of them doesn't add any knowledge to the reader. If you think a photo is necessary, then toss the Illinois example. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)