User talk:Fredddie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Original Barnstar to show appreciation. Original Barnstar for creating maps of Davenport, Iowa. Hats Off Barnstar for creating maps for Puerto Rico highways. Minor Barnstar for creating Arkansas 00 1926.svg Ghost Town Barnstar for creating a map for Thistle, Utah Good Article Barnstar for getting I-680 to Good Article USRD Barnstar for first USRD featured article FA Barnstar for first featured article For beginning-to-end work on U.S. Route 30 in Iowa AURD Barnstar for creating SVG shields Designer Barnstar for making long-overdue maps For not doing anything at all... For speedily creating shields for USRD
Recognized content: Featured articles (US 30 • I-80) • A-Class articles (US 6) • Good articles (20)


You idiot Georgia State Route 39 Spur (Jakin) is an appropriate page. Ejohn319 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Could you elaborate outside of your ad hominem attack? –Fredddie 22:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ohio Turnpike[edit]

New shield you put in the text is a few pixels off to the left; margin size; colors a bit lighter OhioTurnpike.svg
I would do something, but I don't have any experience with inkscape
Cards84664 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The spec from ODOT shows the text that way and I used the same shield blank as the Ohio route markers. The color code comes from commons:MUTCD colors. –Fredddie 23:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to note, the OT sign was not designed by ODOT, OTIC shows the shape of ohio differently. If anything, it should stay as the 2007 version, and the background color should be changed to OTICs' choice of #06A160 Cards84664 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. –Fredddie 23:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
So why should we take odots' design over the commission that actually runs the turnpike? Cards84664 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Show me a measured drawing from the commission and I'll use it in a heartbeat. Until then, an MUTCD from ODOT is a pretty damn good substitute. –Fredddie 00:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Cards84664: many of the various graphics created over the years used a different shade of green than what we're using now, usually brighter. This brighter shade is meant to approximate what the color looks like when light reflects off the retroreflective sheeting used to make modern signs. However, there's been no consensus on how to approximate that, so we've stuck with FHWA's defined shade, which for the green is Pantone 342 or #006B54. Yes, it looks a little bit darker, but let's stay consistent with the official definition. Plus, it matches the color in the infobox.

As for OTIC vs. ODOT, when OTIC releases the appropriate source, we can switch. Until then, I agree with Fredddie that the Ohio MUTCD is our best source for now. Imzadi 1979  07:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Route 69[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on the U.S. Route 69 page? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Because, in your edit description, you said you "revamped [the] section". That was a lie; you only put some maintenance tags on it. I know you mean well, but typically, I never tag something I'm not willing to fix myself. –Fredddie 10:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I admit that it wasn't exactly revamping, but that wasn't a good reason to revert my edit. I apologize if I lied. I don't usually do that. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)