Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 3

Small caps again

User:Holderca1 reverted a few of my removals of template:scaps, saying there was no consensus to do so. --NE2 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The only one in his contribs with an edit summary "rv no conesnsus" is I-10 in Texas. What are the others? --MPD ^{T / C} 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The only other edit summary like that I found is Template:Jct.

There's definitely consensus, though. Feel free to point him towards Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/Archive 1#Use of small caps. -- NORTH ^talk 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any such consensus there, I see several that didn't have an opinion, NE2 opposed small caps, and Scott and myself strongly supported. --Holderca1 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NE2 and I were both opposed from the beginning of that discussion. Consensus, in my eyes, occurs shortly after the second time the convo shifts back to the left margin (where Rob starts out saying ,"Yeah, still pretty indifferent here."). Then TMF came around and said he agreed with myself and NE2, after which Rob immediately agrees to stop using {{scaps}}. Then NE2 offers to start using AWB to get rid of the scaps, and MPD agrees that it's for the good of the project, which covers everyone who had participated in the discussion up to that point. Then after a couple more days of discussion to get the kinks out, the conversation died.

To quote Wikipedia:Consensus, "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus." You and Scott didn't come out supporting {{scaps}} until a month after the guideline was changed. You're more than welcome to start a discussion to change the guideline, as I did above, but until then the guideline says no scaps. -- NORTH ^talk 23:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't even see this conversation until after this point since I didn't look at this talk page until after it was moved from IH to US Roads. Also, if we are going to quote WP:Consensus, please see WP:CCC. I also think it was bad form to archive an active discussion, especially so when thon two most recent posts contradicted your viewpoint. Personally I can't live with a lowercase direction, capital first letter at the very least--Holderca1 10:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Holderca, I'd recommend not re-opening the discussion until we straighten out the above issues. Also, I know I would, and I'm sure North would too, like to hear your opinions on the above issues though. --MPD ^{T / C} 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly indifferent to whether or not we use scaps, but my personal opinion is that it looks much worse (without scaps) and I don't really see how you guys say it looks better. :-) added: A side effect of this position is that I'm not going to actively seek and change scaps tags I've already put in. But I'm already seeing someone who has a vendetta against the use of the term "Chicagoland area" (it's redundant), so if some of you have a vendetta against scaps, I don't really care. —Rob (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that a discussion was under way. —Scott5114↗ 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, consensus can change, I wasn't saying it couldn't. I was merely saying that in January, we did have consensus to change the guideline, so we did.

Yes, it was bad form to archive active discussion. To be honest, the last two comments just got lost in the madness I created above. I assumed that the discussion 4 or 5 sections up was still dead, and didn't notice the two new comments until after you posted here (and after I archived it). Many apologies for that.

As MPD said, I have no problem discussing it again, but I would prefer if we held off on it for a week or so until the above madness is done. -- NORTH ^talk 18:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was on wikibreak from Dec 22 to Feb 10, so I wasn't on here when that discussion was ongoing. I have no problem waiting a week to revisit. --Holderca1 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason we need to revisit this since ELG is a guideline. Just as long as someone doesn't mass change everything in order to follow this guideline, which isn't required to be followed by all the subprojects underneath it. --Holderca1 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Yes, it's a guideline, and yes, we just decided above that guidelines do have leeway to certain extent. Following a guideline isn't optional, it's – to quote the header – "a standard that all users should follow" but "should be treated with ... the occasional exception."

Here's the situation. If no one objects above, I'm going to edit the guideline to allow for looser standards for formatting concurrencies and state lines. But everyone should still follow those looser standards, unless there's a reasonable exception. Right now, the guideline says no small caps, mainly because the small caps were deemed to be unencyclopedic and unnecessary, and the MoS says not to capitalize directions – and that needs to be followed unless there's a reasonable exception.

If you want to revisit it, feel free to go ahead and do so now that the above section is a lot quieter. If you don't want to revisit it, that's fine too, but if you want to go back to using small caps, you do need to revisit it and change the guideline. Otherwise, your exit lists will be tagged as non-compliant. -- NORTH ^talk 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The MoS criteria doesn't apply here. Yes they are directions, but they are also the name of the roadway (well at least half of the roadway). For example, Interstate 10 runs due north through most of San Antonio, but it is still I-10 East/West. Would we put the North Star in lower case just because MoS says to lowercase directions? Also, what is the point of this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/States? --Holderca1 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that page is antequated from when this was still located at a subpage of WP:IH instead of WP:USRD. Then a decision was made that there's no reason not to apply it to all exit lists, such as state highway exit lists. All IH exit lists regardless of what state they're in were/are supposed to follow this guideline. Another possible explanation is that – I'm not sure about the other states listed there, but – New Jersey's junction lists, as well as exit lists, follow this guideline.

North Star is capitalized because it's part of the proper noun. I don't see these directions being nearly the same thing. For instance, we don't have separate articles on Interstate 10 East and Interstate 10 West, because they're not two separate things. Just because it's the name of "half the roadway" doesn't necessarily mean it should be capitalized the same way as the name of the whole thing. For instance, Jimbo is capitalized, but the L in "Jimbo's leg" is not. Weird example, but it's all I can come up with at the moment.

To quote your original comment, "when it is all lowercase, I read it as the direction the road is going, when scaps is used, it links it to the number of the road and is part of the name of the highway." I don't see why reading it as the direction the road is going is a problem; even in San Antonio, thinking I-10 goes east isn't going to confuse anyone, because in the grand scheme of things it does. It's not a particularly large problem to "link the direction to part of the name of the highway", but I don't think it's a good enough reason to outweigh the unencyclopedicness/unprofessionalism and un-MoS-ness of using scaps. -- NORTH ^talk 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing an argument of old... with scaps "I-290 West / U.S. 20 West" becomes the proper name of the junction. "I-290 west / U.S. 20 west" looks like a run-on sentence. —Rob (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see why this is even included in the guideline, it should be okay one way or the other. But, if nitpicking every little thing is how this project is heading, I am losing my interest in it in a hurry. I am not the only one that thinks this shouldn't be blindly applied to all the state pages. See [[1]]. I don't really get your example, where in the MoS does it say anything about capitalizing leg? My example of the North Star was an example of where the MoS is not the end all be all. --Holderca1 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The MoS doesn't apply to North Star because North Star is a proper noun. I don't think Interstate 10 East is – Interstate 10 is a proper noun, and east is an adjective tacked on as an afterthought.

I think part of the reason we're nitpicking about this issue is that it's not formatting so much as it is grammar. I'm not really sure personal preference should come into capitalization rules. That being said, you're right, this is stupid, and I don't really care as much as I pretend to. Can we come up with a compromise the {{scaps}} = bad, but "West" is okay? -- NORTH ^talk 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with that, to be honest, I wouldn't mind if directions disappeared from exit lists completely. Actually I would prefer no directions over lowercase, it just doesn't look right to me for some reason. Ahhh, I don't get much time to come on here and I spend most my time messing around with this stuff than working on the articles. --Holderca1 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

↓

I'm all right with that. It's not just an afterthought; it's the only way you can go at that point, and I'd prefer to be more specific than less. But we can drop scaps and just capitalize it. —Rob (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, afterthought was the wrong word there, but it's still just an adjective in my opinion. I won't edit your capitalization as long as you don't edit my lack thereof. -- NORTH ^talk 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say that I find using {{scaps}} quite satisfactory:

• Readers are at least subconsciously familiar with the small caps convention, having seen it on road signs (thus, it IS encyclopedic)
• It is less ambiguous -- in Oklahoma City all streets are labeled with quadrant directions, and when you have a cloverleaf, you'll end up getting something like N.E. 10th St. west - north east and west are all included there, and using {{scaps}} makes sets the direction the street is going in (West) off from the rest of the text, enhancing readability.

Therefore, I am strongly in favor of {{scaps}} and strongly against removing it. —Scott5114↗ 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why mimicking road signs with unnecessary formatting is more encyclopedic than following proper capitalization rules.
• Actually, seeing as the "N.E." is capitalized, could you not argue that using lowercase sets it off more? -- NORTH ^talk 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is related, but probably deserves its own section, but I think we shouldn't add the directional and "to" placards on the shields, look at some of the examples User:MPD01605/sandbox2. The ones that have two placards make the rows nearly 3 times the height, making the exit list even longer and leaving big gaps as well. I am fine with Alternate or Business placards, but the directional and to ones need to go. It's mentioned directly to the right anyways. --Holderca1 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The images render far better in Firefox than they do in IE, with no vertical space between the plates and the shields. The directional plates might be superfluous, but at minimum we should keep the "To" plates.

Interestingly, originally the guideline said to either use the directional plate or put the direction in the text, not both. Maybe we could go back to that system – seeing as how I'm not sure why it was changed. For clarity's sake, I think "To" should still get both a plate and the word in text, though. -- NORTH ^talk 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason for changing it was based on comments at the 3di navbox discussion, where it was determined that images should be accompanied with appropriate text. If we do decide to go to one format (plates or text), I'd rather ditch the plates than the text. The reason for this is three-fold: (1) the plates are sometimes hard to read at 20px, (2) the code required to insert the images into the article is much larger than the small amount needed to simply type the direction and (3) the usage of plates for directions appears to be inconsistent, whether it be centering issues or width problems. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Three very valid points. I'm all for getting rid of them, as long as we keep the "To" plate. -- NORTH ^talk 22:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the "To" plate is fine, as I've found that plate to be easily visible at 20px. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The "To" plate is good, because then it gives consistent placement for the shield for which we're using "To", instead of <Shield> Route to <Shield> Route which breaks the flow. And it's visible, yes. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't be biased towards one browser over the other. What causes the spaces in IE? On second though, "to" is important enough to keep, clarifies things a bit. --Holderca1 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know browser preference is bad. :-P IE treats the directional plate as a regular line of text, and makes the height of that line the same as any other line of text. Firefox makes it only as high as the image. -- NORTH ^talk 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think of it as merely mimicking signs, but rather as a typographical convention for setting directions off from text. Readers are already familiar with this convention; it is good design. See Principle of least surprise. —Scott5114↗ 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On road signs, scaps is used to make the sign easy to read from a distance while traveling at 60 mph. Text in an encyclopedia is a completely different animal, and should resemble normal typographical conventions as much as possible. Seeing formatting that they've never seen in regular text (the template is only used in road articles) doesn't follow that principle. -- NORTH ^talk 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have another question, for "to" in the text, shouldn't it be capitalized since it is the first word of a sentence/fragment or whatever? --Holderca1 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly when it's the first thing mentioned (if the exit is only to a route) but not when it's A east to B. --NE2 18:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. -- NORTH ^talk 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with that, since it seems to be the prevailing opinion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Guideline changed

I've edited the guideline based on what we've seemed to agree on. If you have any issues, please feel free to take them up here. The old discussion has been archived to /Archive 2. -- NORTH ^talk 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed to keep the shields in a discussion prior to this one? I'll be sad to see them go... not to mention the shields help with wrong-way concurrencies. —Rob (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I had thought location would be optional as well as county if the the highway was located entirely within one location. --Holderca1 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the location being optional, oversight on my part. I don't think I said anything about removing (or keeping) shields, could you clarify what's unclear. (If it's unclear in my revision, it was probably unclear in the original...) -- NORTH ^talk 22:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about shields. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Rob may mean the auxiliary directional plates. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling... Feel free to revert that if I was too hasty with that change.

I put in the note about the location column, as well as a "don't bold the exit numbers" note. I'm not sure where I should put the "don't use colors" note; if someone else wants to add it in, feel free. -- NORTH ^talk 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant directional plates, but I see that you knew what I meant. Auxiliary plates should stay, but I think we've already discussed that. I can't remember - the discussion's been too long and varied. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all one section up, if you go three "threads" up (threads = where the text is at the left margin). Basically, the rough consensus is that auxiliary and "To" plates stay, directional plates go. -- NORTH ^talk 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rest areas and service areas

This was never really discussed at any point and, if it was, no consensus was ever reached. The edits in question are here and here, where rest areas and parking areas are added to the exit list. My stance is that this is an exit list and rest areas and the like are not exits, and therefore have no place in the table. Thoughts? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say only on things like Turnpikes should service plazas be mentioned (since it could be 30 miles between exits and it'd be good to know when there's fuel or something). But that's my stance. If so, only on Turnpikes would I accept these. --MPD ^{T / C} 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an exit per se... but it fits with the concept of a guide. I'd keep them in there. Finding out where they all are is another project entirely. —Rob (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MPD (Yes service areas, no other stuff). Rest areas would be okay (but not preferred), but I really don't see the point of listing a parking lot on the side of the road, even if it does offer a great view. -- NORTH ^talk 07:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say definitely no to rest and parking areas. Service plazas I can go either way on, there are stretches on western interstates where there are 20-30 miles between exits without service plazas, you just pay attention to your fuel levels. I can understand their inclusion though as well. --Holderca1 13:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose service areas can be included, but, like I said above, I don't think structures that aren't directly on the road (i.e. a toll barrier, a bridge or a tunnel) should be included on an exit list (a title that I read as "list of exits"). The lists on Wikipedia are not meant to be a "guide" like exit lists are on some roadfan sites. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. For that reason, I stand by my comments above. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you TMF – that it's an exit list, not a guide. It's just that for reasons I can't put into words, I think service plazas fall into the same category as toll barriers. -- NORTH ^talk 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tunnels

The guidelines currently mention bridges, but what about the inclusion of significant tunnels, like Eisenhower Tunnel, Big Walker Mountain Tunnel, and East River Mountain Tunnel? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm...well, toll facilities are obviously included (bridges and tunnels both), but none of those mentioned are tolled...I have no opinion on the issue, really. The problem with bridges is that there are so many (The Po River bridge on I-95...yeah not important for inclusion). Tunnels...There are what, three tunnels on I-70's entire length, two on I-77, one/two on I-40, one on I-10 I think...

That said, does this include only mountain/water tunnels or including tunnels under cities (like the Big Dig). I'd say if we include tunnels, only the mountain/underwater tunnels. But I'd like to hear more from others. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, tunnels should be limited to those traversing terrain (mountains/water). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Services?

Please see Talk:List of exits on Interstate 5 for a discussion on the use of service signs (for example: File:FHAFood.gif) in exit lists. -- NORTH ^talk 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Mileposts != length of road

Working through Interstate 55 in Illinois... interesting fact: Exit numbers and mileposts for I-55 start at the I-55/70 junction, not the Missouri state line.

So... should the Mile column refer to the actual mile, or the milepost mile? —Rob (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? On Mapquest it appears that I-70/55/64 all start at the same place: the state line (since that is the southern and western terminus of all three interstates). I-55's first exit after splitting with I-70 is 23, I-70's first after leaving 55 is 21. There might be some discrepency, and I don't know what the mileposts actually say...If this is indeed not the case, it would be the first occurence of this that I've heard of. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The milepost in the exit list should refer to how it is logged by the DOT, which presumably is equivalent to how it is signed.

The length in the infobox, however, should refer to the actual length of the roadway. -- NORTH ^talk 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rand McNally '06 confirms MPD/Mapquest. I don't have time at the moment to check official DOT sources to see what's going on.

But if there's a case elsewhere where this happens, I stand by what I said above. -- NORTH ^talk 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stranger than fiction. Okay... see this table. The length of the road is 313 mi, 18 of which are with I-70. But I'm working backwards from Chicago, with exit 293D as the last exit given on Mapquest (U.S. 41 has no exit number). I can confirm this because I've driven that stretch. It appears 18 miles of road are missing. —Rob (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, the government could just be wrong. —Rob (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think FHWA messed up and counted the I-70 section twice. According to Page 190 here, there are 275.66 miles of I-55, presumably plus ~20 with I-70, which adds up to ~293. I'll keep looking for something a little more concrete though. -- NORTH ^talk 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks like what happened, calculating the numbers from the FHWA table, 294.38 - 18.70 = 275.68, looks like they added when they should of subtracted. --Holderca1 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. Everyone laugh at FHWA! -- NORTH ^talk 22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Auxiliary plates, etc.

No, I'm not opening up a shop. So since we all know that consensus can change, and after reviewing the recent edits on Interstate 85 in North Carolina, Interstate 77 in South Carolina, and Interstate 77 in North Carolina, and I'm sure soon to be countless others, I just want to clarify that we're all on the same page before I being to spend hours that I don't really have to change things.

1. Is consensus still that auxiliary plates (with the exception of "To") are advised not to be used?
2. And what colour should be used for unconstructed future/under construction exits?

Like I said, I'd get to it but since there is another fairly active editor, I guess I'd like community opinion before I go spend hours on something possibly all for not. --MPD ^{T / C} 03:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, which may or may not be 100% accurate.

1. Yes, no directional plates.
2. No color. See Interstate 405 (Washington) for an exit lists that lists a future interchange without using color.

-- NORTH ^talk 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do projects override this?

See Talk:Tilghman Street and Union Boulevard#Junction list. --NE2 00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Junction lists and exit lists are two completely separate things. Projects do not override exit lists, but there is no set standard on junction lists. This guideline will not be the standard for junction lists. Also, this has already been discussed at the last IRC meeting and at other informal chats on the channel. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 00:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should we not format exit and junction lists similarly? --NE2 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Because they are two different things. We should format them similarly, for example the column names should. However, the output needs to be different. Exit lists contain grade-separated interchanges, while junction lists contain at-grade intersections. We've agreed to no colours on exit lists, but not junction lists. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, exit lists are different than junction lists.--JA10 ^{T · C} 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(double ec) You're using circular logic. You're saying that they shouldn't be formatted similarly because they need to be different. I don't see why the garde-separation needs a significantly different output, and even if we agree on colors for the junction list, we can do those fine with regular table syntax (i.e. New Jersey Route 33). -- NORTH ^talk 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Vishwin that, at present, this does not apply to junction lists, so it's not really "overriding". However, I also strongly agree with NE2 that there's no reason it shouldn't apply. -- NORTH ^talk 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Guideline details

Based on some discussions over Interstate 215 (Nevada), it appears that the guideline needs to be updated. Some editors believe that the order of the columns in the guideline is not correct. There is nothing in the guideline that specifies that colors should not be used or that a specific type of formatting is required (no centering). These are only implied from the examples but are not stated anywhere in the guideline. Vegaswikian 21:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the examples are inconsistent on the need for a space between the shield and the route. Vegaswikian 22:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

iirc, I thought we talked about the colors already. But then I don't really pay attention to ELG as I don't work on exit lists :| --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of colors, was discussed here and consensus was not to use color. VerruckteDan 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My contention is that if the guideline does not reflect the consensus that was reached, it needs to be changed. I'm only here because someone slapped an exit cleanup template on an article that did not meet undocumented guidelines. I'd rather have someone who works here update the guideline. Otherwise stop using the template on articles that are in compliance. Editors are not expected to go searching through talk pages to find the guidelines. Vegaswikian 22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the colors thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In digging further, it appears that shields are seperated from the road name by a space. Cojoined roads are separated by a '/'. However if the cojoined roads also have shields then the shields are listed before any of the road names and they are not separated in any way from each other. Is this also the unwritten guideline? Vegaswikian 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Now is the time to use common sense. Please look at the majority of the compliant exit lists, and you will see that what you said is true. (→zelzany - review) 00:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, use common sense. Why is it up to editors to know that you determine what the guideline covers by looking 'at the majority of the compliant exit lists' which are self identified as such, right? Why slap cleanup tags on articles that are in compliance with the written guidelines? Is that common sense? Common sense says you make it easy for someone to know what the guideline is and not make it a game to find out the guideline and all of the exceptions. Vegaswikian 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the standards, but... the guideline does need to be a little more explicit than "look at the other articles and see what they do." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

There is a list of examples on the guideline page. So having to look at other exit lists isn't necessary, look at the examples. I am confused by the reference to "unwritten guideline." No where in the guideline does it say that color is required or optional. None of the examples use color, so common sense tells you that you don't use color. The same goes for spacing and slashes, look at the examples on how they are to be used. I don't think it is realistic to include everything that you can't do, that has the possibility of being a very long list. As far as I can tell, every issue that you brought up, if not specifically addressed in the body of the guideline, it is addressed in the examples. --Holderca1 13:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Which assumes that someone will start at the guideline to write an exist list. Mine came from another article and I just kept 'improving' it. When the tag was tacked on, I looked at what was required and bought it into compliance by READING the guideline. Then I removed the tag since the article was now in compliance. What did I do wrong, nothing to most people. However in this case, I did not decipher the examples which are apparently defined part of the guideline including exceptions to the guidelines that are defined within the examples. If it is a guideline write it! Not everyone who works on this project writes every exit list. Average editors do, many who don't even know this guidance is here. Since there is so much that was not written in this guideline, I wasted more time trying to figure it out then it took to fix the problems. I ask, was that time spent productively? All I'm asking is that if there is something in the guideline put it in writing and show examples in case anyone needs to see exactly how to do it. As to addressing my concerns in the examples, just because color is not used, does not mean it can not be used. Actually some of the rows do use color, so saying it is not allowed is not entirely correct. Same thing for centering, the formatting is not mentioned so I can do what I want. Vegaswikian 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that is another problem entirely, how the guideline is written will fix the problem of people not knowing it exists. I am still confused on what exactly you are wanting the guideline to say, I didn't write the guideline, but I had no problem creating exit lists that looked exactly like the examples. What colors are you refering too? All I see is gray. What are you wanting to center? --Holderca1 18:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, if you place an exit list cleanup tag on an exit list, tell everyone what needs to be done, making someone look through the exit list and compare to the guideline isn't all that reasonable. In fact, they may not even see what it is that you tagged it for in the first place, in which case they may just remove it thinking it is within standards. --Holderca1 13:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A parameter for rationale, present on every other USRD cleanup tag, has been added to the ELG tag. It is now mandatory to supply rationale (in other words, explain what's wrong with the list) with each use. This should help to address some of the above concerns. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

worldwide applicability

Since it has been moved out of the USRD project space, combined with the recent change indicating it applies to highways around the world, I think it is appropriate to discuss more widely the standards. Because different countries do things differently, there needs to be a rewriting of the guide to use more generic terms, and also a relaxing of the guideline itself. I'm opening the discussion here to see what others think about how to re-write this for worldwide applicability, or if it should be explcitly stated that this guideline applies only to the U.S.

Currently, we have columns requiring "County", "Location", "Mile", "Exit number", "Destinations", and "Notes". There is also a note about breaking up the list by state. Now, many countries do not have an intermediate administrative subdivision similar to county and that needs to go. County and location are essentially indicating where the exit/junction and can, in principle, be combined as just "Location". The U.S. situation will then be just a special case. "Mile", obviously, will become "km" in many countries. This might even be labeled "Distance from terminus" or something similar. "Exit number" is generally just a label for an exit. Some countries use "Interchange name" or "Exit name" instead of using an exit number. Some have both a name and a number. "Destinations" goes by what signage indicates so that is ok. "Notes" is also ok.

In short, my opiniion is that the required columns should be: (1) Physical location of exit; (2) Distance of exit from some reasonable point (the milepost or kilometerpost); (3) Name of exit (usually the exit number in the U.S.); (4) Destinations (as indicated by signage); (5) Notes. Any reasonable variation, including using a separate County column for the location, or using a different label for "Location" such as "Municipality", should be deemed as within the guideline.

The section on "State highway link appearance" obviously does not apply worldwide and needs to be removed or changed. Finally, we would need examples from different countries, not just from the U.S. Also, breaking up by states (or primary country subdivisions) might not always be useful for other countries as many expressways outside the U.S. are administered nationally or by a single private corporation, even if they span multiple states/provinces/etc.

Comments are appreciated. --Polaron | Talk 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally like this modification. In terms of county, there's already a deviation of that in Louisiana; they use Parish instead of County. Still good nonetheless. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the guideline for settlements has a section by country for differences. Maybe a simple solution for the table layout would be to have one for three levels of government like the US. One for two levels and one for a single level (Singapore?). Miles vs km should be easy to specify. The exit # could be presented as a list of possible options based on local usage stating that all uses in a single country should use the same format. You could even offer a table by country the lists the options used by country. Vegaswikian 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No problems with that assessment. One comment, the "state highway link", even if not kept as a section, needs to be kept in some form for the U.S. section of the guide. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The county column is already optional if the road is located in only one county, the same would hold true for highways around the world, if there is not a smaller political subdivision, then the column should be omitted. --Holderca1 21:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually taking a moment to read the guideline again, it is in need of being rewritten. It is very specific to interstates, likely from when it was part of that project. This guideline applys to all exit and junction lists on interstates, US highways, state highways, county highways, foreign highways, and needs to be rewritten as such. --Holderca1 14:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about listing concurrencies

Is including concurencies without exception? For instance, New York State Route 55 is concurrent with County Route 11 (Sullivan County, New York). Should this be included. Also, if there is an extremely short concurrency between two roads, does it merit inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyshoe (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't include county routes on State Routes. This was discussed rather thoroughly, although I don't know that we ever came to a consensus, you may want to dig through the talk archives. --Holderca1 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If the overlap exists because the road is county-maintained (see the west end of NY 52), I think they should be there, but if it's state-maintained, it doesn't seem necessary. --NE2 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, yet another exit/junction list using color. Which is even more pointless when you don't tell the reader what the color means. Okay, off on a tangent. I don't understand what you mean by maintaining part of it. I have always been in favor of mentioning the concurrency when the state cosigns the roads. --Holderca1 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Holderca1 that if the roads are clearly signed as concurrencies, they deserve a mention in the junction list. The cases described above are signed for both the county road and the state route. The county also maintains these co-sgined portions of the state routes. See [2] and [3]. --Polaron | Talk 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

@Holderca1: If you hover over the colour in that junction list, you will find out what they mean.

@Everyone: If the road is major (such as NJ's 500-series CRs), then it deserves a mention. If they aren't major at all, do not include them. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 14:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the average reader would think to hover over the color to find out what it means, at any rate the color doesn't belong, we already agreed not to use color. --Holderca1 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that the county maintains those parts of NY 52, and cosigns them with county routes. I would also agree with listing overlaps with major county routes, at least ones that have articles, just as intersections with them should be listed. But a minor overlap with a county route, even if signed, probably does not belong: see the diagram below for an example. --NE2 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    CR 931 DEAD END
       |
       |
=======+===+======== SR 59
           |
           |
        CR 931 LOCAL STREET

@NE2: I'd wholeheartedly concur.

@Holderca1: There was no consensus for junction lists globally, so each state WikiProject decides how they're formatted. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that this entire guideline is optional? --Holderca1 17:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the question above is discussing a junction table, for which there are no standards yet. This guideline covers only exit lists. But the question was likely posted here because there is no counterpart for junction lists. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Junction and exit lists are the exact same thing with the exception of the exit number column and that only varies in some cases. For example, Texas only puts exit numbers on interstates, so US and state highways don't have exit numbers so that column doesn't exist on their exit list anyways. --Holderca1 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's just say they're not the same thing, since there will be lots of fuss about differences and what not. There will unlikely be any consensus to determine this either. Forum shopping will not help, nor is it allowed. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it, what differences? The only difference between a freeway and a surface highway is that one has its juncions via exit ramps, the other via a traffic light. Forum shopping? Please provide proof of when I have ever done this before you make baseless accusations. --Holderca1 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this issue for a bit since this question was first brought up, and I'm beginning to agree; however, nothing currently exists for junction lists in the guideline. The only reason I stated that exit lists and junction lists were different initially is that I wanted to retain the colors after using them for a while on Template:Routeboxny; since it's been almost a year since the conversion was made, I'm ready to let the colors go. All the efforts that have been done recently to make exit lists and the junction tables identical also play a role in my thought process. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about lengths

(I'm moving this from WT:USRD. --NE2 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Colorado has precise data, but the way it is measured is a little strange. For instance, pull up the data for 70 between 0 and 500. Milepost 2 is labeled as "0.96 TOTAL MILE LENGTH", the sum of the fourth column between MP 1 and MP 2. This actual length can be calculated, though it requires a bit of fudging and possibly guesswork at overlaps. Is it better to use the actual distance, or the distance that they give, which matches mileposts and is a lot easier to calculate? I'm leaning towards the latter, with a note either above the table or in the footnote describing the limitations, but I'd like another opinion. --NE2 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I was able to do the actual length for Interstate 70 in Colorado; it differs by 0.077 miles overall from the mileposts (though it's a bit more off in the middle). Now I'm working on U.S. Route 6 in Colorado and got stuck, since the I-70 list doesn't show the mileage for where US 6 leaves. Unless someone has a way to avoid this, I'm going to use the milepost-based mileage, and recommend that others do so for everything but Interstates and possibly other freeways. --NE2 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

It says exclude places where 2 interstates cross without interchange. What if they are connectable via a third road, for instance Interstate 87 and Intestate 84 are accesable from eachother via NY 300. How would that (or a similar example) be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyshoe (talk • contribs)

That really depends on signage, especially if the signage indicates a junction and doesn't say "To" then they should definitely be listed. If the intersecting road does not appear anywhere in signage, it should not be listed. --Polaron | Talk 13:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I-587 should be listed on the Thruway exit list, probably in parentheses because it's not signed from the Thruway. --NE2 17:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I put that on the notes if it's not on the signage. If it is, it gets a mention as part of the destination. —Rob (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Was there consensus to put minor overlaps in the notes column?

I maved a few minor overlap to the notes column on Interstate 10 in Texas and was reverted. I don't understand why these need their own row; was there any consensus in the earlier debate (archive 2)? --NE2 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We never reached a consensus, it was fairly split from what I remember, that is why the guideline states that both are acceptable. --Holderca1 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we discuss anything when NE2 is just going to come back a few months later and make changes that completely disregard that consensus. See this change [4] which I reverted and he later reverted, with discussion here that clearly shows a consensus. Yes, consensus can change, but discussion needs to be started before changes are made. --Holderca1 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There was never any agreement to ignore the Manual of Style. --NE2 15:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was always taught to capitilize proper nouns. --Holderca1 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you capitalize all of the directions here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/NHS/DC? --Holderca1 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are addressing directions; 14th Street Northwest becomes 14th Street Southwest at the Mall. If I were telling someone which way to go on 14th Street, I'd say "go north on 14th Street Northwest", take "14th Street Northwest towards the north", etc. "US 85 south" is not an actual roadway; it's shorthand for "US 85 towards the south". --NE2 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So using that logic, you would tell someone to take I-10 north in San Antonio, correct? Since that would be shorthand for I-10 towards the north. Your example is nowhere to be found in the MoS. I would be completely justified in changing those to lowercase using the same justification you did. If the direction is not part of the actual roadway, then it should not be included at all, perhaps it should be noted in the notes column. --Holderca1 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you might do that, but you'd probably say west, since the signs indicate that I-10 goes west. You seem to be rules lawyering about what's in the MoS; it gives guidance of what should be done, not a strict list of what to apply it to. The direction is part of where the road goes, just like the towns. --NE2 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"it gives guidance of what should be done, not a strict list of what to apply it to" Exactly! So stop changing things that don't need to be changed. The community came to a consensus on how to handle the situation. If you disagree with that consensus, it needs to be discussed before blinding making changes. --Holderca1 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The guidance is that "If you are not sure whether a region has attained proper-noun status, assume it has not." --NE2 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I never said I wasn't sure, again, the community came to a consensus. Opposing that is highly disruptive. --Holderca1 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The community never came to a consensus to capitalize directions; all of the examples on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) are lowercase. --NE2 16:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, [5], [6], [7], and you can't even say you were unaware of the discussion (in fact you started it), you made a comment during that discussion here [8], not once did you oppose this compromise. As for the guideline itself, it was simply never corrected, the guideline had lowercase prior to that discussion. --Holderca1 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline is correct; the fact that it was never changed shows more than that discussion. Let's wait for other input before continuing this "back-and-forth". --NE2 18:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember ever having concurrencies in their own rows. However, the page does say that either are acceptable, as I've seen both methods in different freeway articles. If this were to be condensed into just using one method, I'd use the notes column. (→O - RLY?) 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many agreed with it, but what I agreed the most with was making overlaps where the exit numbers change - like I-10 and I-35 - or possibly other very major ones full-width, and everything else in the notes. --NE2 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because you believe something is right doesn't make it right in everyone's eyes. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Archive_2#Concurrency_termini. As I said, there wasn't a consensus on anything, that is why the guideline says both are acceptable. Okay, say we are on a state highway article, and a concurrency begins with a US highway, you are saying that should only be mentioned in the notes column? That seems pretty significant to me. --Holderca1 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus and it's pretty much been a free-for-all, and NE2 wasn't doing anything wrong. I supported what NE2 supports originally. But "major" is ambiguous, but also having a break every two or three exits is visually displeasing. So let's reopen discussion instead of arguing over what it says or doesn't say. --MPD ^{T / C} 20:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is this needs to be able to be applied to all exit/junction lists. Saying that, not all roads have exits, and not all have exit numbers for those that do have exits. Here is what I propose, a multi-column row for all concurrencies with other highways of equal or greater designation. Meaning, on an interstate article, only concurrencies with other interstates would get a multi-column row, all others would go in the notes section. On a state highway article, all concurrencies with other state highways, US highways, and interstates are multicolumn rows, anything else goes in the notes. --Holderca1 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Other thoughts? --MPD ^{T / C} 20:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, with the occasional common sense thrown in when dealing with a hypothetical case where an Interstate uses the exit numbers of a U.S. Route, and other strange cases. --NE2 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose putting any concurrency notice in a colspan. We already have a notes section for these types of things, and especially in exit lists, the places where the concurrent route leaves already serves that purpose. (→O - RLY?) 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the last portion of your comment, what do you mean by "and especially in exit lists, the places where the concurrent route leaves already serves that purpose" --Holderca1 22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That meant that there would be four redundant rows carrying the same content. See Pennsylvania Route 33, MP 22.20–24.50. (→O - RLY?) 23:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Though, it can get lost just putting it in the notes column, I have seen exit lists with the same road 3 or 4 times, but the highway never is concurrent with it. See Interstate 10 in Texas and exits 412, 420, and 429. I don't know about not including any in a multi-column row, at the very least all interstate concurrencies should be listed. --Holderca1 23:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalizing directions

Getting back to this, I still fail to see how the capitalization in 7th Street North is acceptable while Interstate 10 West is not with the reasoning being those are addressing directions. See the addresses for these two businesses, [9] and [10], so it would it seem that the reasoning would also follow on to highways. --Holderca1 14:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in a mixed position here. I'd support capitalising only if the state in question is confirmed to capitalise their exit signage. If we don't know or if they don't, then just use plain text. (→O - RLY?) 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as exit signage goes, I don't think I have ever see anything but "WEST" and "West", don't think I have ever seen "West" or "west". --Holderca1 15:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well those translated to Wiki would be "west" and "West", respectively. IDK why, but why not. The differences are that one is the direction identifying a road. Looking at a map of Amarillo, both frontage roads are labelled I-40, and like all roads west of I-27, it's labelled as "West", like West 24th Avenue, West 14th Avenue, etc. Conversely, on the east side of I-27, all east-west roads are labelled "East". Some appear to be Southwest or Northwest but you get the idea. I'd imagine that "West" or "East" happens to come after "I-40" because it's less ambiguous than "West I-40", but I don't know; I'd still be confused b/c we don't really have frontage roads in the east. But the "West" after "Interstate 40" is an addressing direction. That's different than saying "Take I-40 west toward Albuquerque", where you are telling in which direction to take I-40. That's likened to saying "Take 7th Street north to 8th Avenue". Of course, you could say "Take North 7th Street north" or "Take 7th Street North north..." etc.

Replying to O, I wouldn't even go that far. From what I've seen (OH NO Original research!), it seems to be newer signs in many eastern states (and Hawai'i[11]) have capitalized directions. (I have a gallery from the last time we talked about this here. You should be able to access it. But it needs to be a blanket rule, and I think that differing from the MOS requires a better argument and depends on how you look at it. Is it just a direction "I-40 west", or is it an addressing direction relative to where you are "I-40 West"? That's all I have to say on this. Period. --MPD ^{T / C} 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Following these comments (thanks MPD), I don't think we should use scaps anymore, because of real life and the dry facts that you gave. (→O - RLY?) 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have long since given up advocating the use of {{scaps}} (although the usage of the template is still high), I was questioning whether to have "Interstate 65 North" or "Interstate 65 north". Just doing a google search gives both uses rather evenly, so I decided to see what AASHTO uses, see [12]. --Holderca1 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like both AASHTO and USDOT capitalise North, South, East, and West. (→O - RLY?) 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Kilometre posts

After flipping through the PA 39 FAC and by driving around the various highways of China, I'm beginning to see a need for kilometre posts on exit and junction lists. Even though USRD's intended audience is U.S. readers and Chinese road articles are intended for Chinese/Asian readers, we also need to think out of the box for our international readers as well.

If this stuff were to be implemented, I suggest having an orientation where it's like an exit list that has both old and new exit numbers (Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania is a good example), only that the text "Old" and "New" are to be replaced with "mi" and "km". Subsequent rows would have the mile and kilometre posts in different columns, with handsfree conversion handled in a template. Comments? (→O - RLY?) 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that's helpful if I were to be driving the road (unless it's one of those few roads signed in kms or in both mi and km). If I'm reading an article on a foreign road, I don't see the need for km posts. I don't know, I'm apprehensive about it and just don't see a true reason. --MPD ^{T / C} 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Like Interstate 19 master son^{T - C} 04:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with MPD, it doesn't seem right to put 'km' posts on roadways that don't have them in reality. It's the same logic that would prevent me from adding miles to a metric exit list. The only conceivable use I can see for this is WP:FA, as the FA folks tend to like these kind of obscure items. But for the average state highway that will never reach recognized status, this is a bit extraneous. If every article had a compliant exit list, I'd give this idea more thought, but since we are far from that day, I'd rather bring lists up to standards than spend time adding these measurements to already compliant articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the average user (editor) of USRD may not think that km posts may be necessary, but Wikipedia is looked at and used globally, not just in the U.S. That means that we have no idea if international readers will read/use our articles, regardless of quality. Furthermore, we also have no idea if somebody prefers either mile or kilometre distances, so in order to make Wikipedia as usuable as possible, kilometre posts should be included. Our infoboxes already contain a mile and kilometre distance, so why not junction/exit lists? As for bringing exit/junction lists up to standards, it can incorporate this. (→O - RLY?) 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But will anyone be willing to make these "upgrades" to hundreds and, literally, thousands of articles? That is the better question. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Over time, yes to exit lists. Upgrades to junction lists that already utilize {{Jctint}} and its sister and child templates ({{PAint}}) will appear in an instant, because they will automatically utitize the conversion template. (→O - RLY?) 07:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll answer my own question - based on the reaction below, on IRC, and my personal feeling, the answer seems to be no. Of course, you can do this if you feel it's necessary, but I'd never do this on an article. I'm more worried about getting articles to standards than something extraneous like this. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, here's a thought I had last night. If I was a Canadian looking at an American road article, knowing that the U.S. uses the imperial system, I wouldn't expect to see distances in kilometers except for the overall length, as distances in kilometers in the U.S. do not serve any purpose. Likewise, as an American looking at a Canadian road article, knowing that Canada uses metric, I wouldn't expect to see mileposts for any distance but, again, the overall length, as distances in miles in Canada do not serve any purpose. And the same thing applies to every other metric country out there. I also take offense to you calling my stance a "walled garden" mentality just because I don't agree with this idea - I'm disagreeing because I think it's a bad idea. Nothing more. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. If I go to China, what good do I get out of having the distances between interchanges in miles, none. I would either need a car that has an odometer based in miles, or a GPS to use those distances. --Holderca1 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tested this on two articles: Schuylkill Expressway and Borman Expressway. Feel free to comment. I've also tagged this as needing wider attention, since I would like to hear opinions from editors who mainly do not edit road articles. (→O - RLY?) 10:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There are way too many numbers. If e do do this, we need to put the exit numbers first. It wasn't too bad when the two numbers were generally similar, but we should re-order the numbers. New exit no., old exit no., mile, km IMO. --MPD ^{T / C} 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I say no, who would ever find them usefull? There are no actual km posts on the road, so knowing you are at km 523.56 doesn't help you at all when you are on the road. I can't speak for international folks that come to the US, but when I travel overseas, I use km and km/h when travelling, only makes sense when everything is marked that way. Also, what good is km posts, when the odometers of cars read in miles. (Although newer vehicles are now giving the option of both.) Guide signs are in miles. Unless you are a metric nut, I don't see anyone driving in the US and using km. You would have to do conversions every time you pass a guide sign. I just don't see this as being helpful at all. The only exception I can see is where both are used, like I-19 where they are converting signs back over to miles, but there are still many metric signs. --Holderca1 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Us road editors may not find them useful, but we really need to think about everyone else, since we are not writing these articles for ourselves or roadgeeks. We are an encyclopedia, and to that end, we should provide as much accurate information as possible for all readers. How come we include the km distance in {{Infobox road}} as well as mi? And even more, why are you guys discussing in such a walled garden state? This is why I am requesting wider input from the community at large, because this issue isn't really for us to decide. (→O - RLY?) 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please reread my comment, specifically the part where I said I wouldn't find mileposts for an overseas road useful. --Holderca1 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If I-19 is dropping the metric numbers why even consider adding this information there? Vegaswikian 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It will years before ADOT changes the numbers, the only portions that have been changed are where construction projects are. They both should be listed since the exit numbers are based on km. --Holderca1 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The only way I can see doing this that I would find acceptable is to change the mile post column to a "distance" column, which would be the distance along the route. The column would then contain distant to that point from the start of the road in miles and kilometers, in this format: 114.34 mi (184.01 km), well we could lose the units and add that to the top of the table, but you get the idea. It doesn't need to be separate columns and there are no "kilometer posts" on most US roads. --Holderca1 14:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just added the mile and km to the I-19 exit list. I think this is the best way to handle this. --Holderca1 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Modifications to {{convert}} are starting to sound more and more useful to this cause... —Rob (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use {{convert}}, there isn't an option to not list the units, which would be extremely redundant through everyline of the exit list. Also, due to the complexity of the template you are going to ping out your template limits rather quickly. Especially is you are using some of the other templates in exit/junction lists. --Holderca1 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Mi to km}} would be a much better option if we go the template route (much simpler), I can work with it to leave the units off as well. --Holderca1 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I took that a step further and created template limit friendly {{Mi-km}}, the output is miles (km) with no units listed. --Holderca1 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny when a U.S. road exit has a metric unit (and international road exits have an imperial unit). It's like saying you want to get off the the highway on exit 10 mi, so you write down on your direction sheet "get off the highway on exit 6.2137 km". It's just absurb. But if you are stating the overall length of the road/highway, then it's useful to have both units. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TBH, I don't see the point of the kilometer markers. This is a US topic. I can see the point for DE 1 and I-19, but otherwise, I don't see why it's needed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly do we need km markers on pages for roads that are not marked in km? What use is the km information if the roads are actually marked in miles? The markers should be in whatever units the roads themselves are actually marked. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it seems that everywhere else on Wikipedia, editors provide the SI unit for the corresponding Imperial unit. Which makes it convention, if not common courtesy. —Rob (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think anywhere else has this specific situation. We give the conversion for the entire length, but what use is it to give the conversion for a mile based exit number? I don't think anywhere has this specific issue, so convention exists. --Holderca1 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For the mile-based exit number, I can understand. But for the milepost, we can provide a conversion. —Rob (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I made template:mikm for state highway lists; it could be used here. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea though. --NE2 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So has it pretty much come down to that we're not going to provide a conversion for exit numbers, but we're still on the fence about mileposts? I'm still against mileposts if the exits are are mile-based, so adding kms is another thing. However, I'll do whatever it take to get an article to be an FA, but for regular articles? I'd rather not do this. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

New: Require one unit only

FA criteria requires that everything be compliant with standards. So from this discussion here, I'm seeing that we should add a bit to the current guideline that says that only the official units used in the country for which the route lies in should be displayed (U.S. would be miles, China uses kilometres). Any objections? (→O - RLY?) 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, with the exception of the roads like Interstate 19. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say I-19 was going to be the an exception to this. Delaware Route 1 could possibly be another exception since it uses kilometre-based exit numbers. The exception(s) should be noted if this is agreed to. (→O - RLY?) 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Many Hawaii state highways list kms, too. Of course, the only limited-access highways are Interstates. But for junction lists, they'd be used. If they actively use them, it's perfectly fine to list them, too. I do have a comment on I-19 though, I'll be on IRC in a few to discuss that and then post it here. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Directional clarification

OK, I was under the impression (from the Archived discussions and from a discussion on Interstate 4 yesterday when I made changes to the exit list) that directionals are definitely a no-no. However, GA's like Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, Schuylkill Expressway, and Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) all have not only directionals, but "To" signs as well listed above the shields. Once and for all, what is the correct procedure. I think everyone's really confused as to what's right and what's wrong with these, myself included, and I want to make sure everything's as seamless as possible. Personally, I think they belong because they appear on BGS at times (so does {{scaps}}, but we all know how people feel about that one), but that's just me. What's the rule? EaglesFanInTampa 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The guideline is pretty clear: Directional exits should be formatted in the following pattern: "(road shield) (link to road article) (direction)". Example: NY 252 east. Those articles you listed need to be corrected to conform to the guideline. Also, the exit lists are not meant to replicate exit signs since we are building an encyclopedia and not a travel guide. --Holderca1 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"To" signs are acceptable, though, based on prior discussions. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

While we're kind of on the subject, has anyone ever tried to read a "business" or "bypass" plate at 20px? I know you have, it's rhetorical. What if we break from the norm and make and use "BUS" and "BYP" plates for use in exit/junction lists and other areas where bigger and fewer letters are necessary? --MPD ^{T / C} 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense from a legibility perspective. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding seperate HOV exits in addition to the primary ones

What do you think of this anon ip's addition to the exit list of Interstate 580 (California)?[13] The anon ip is referring to the left exit from the HOV lane from eastbound I-580 to westbound Interstate 80. However, the exit list on the article also has the primary exit from East I-580 to West I-80. My only concern is that if this addition is kept, we might as well add all of the similar, seperate exits from the HOV-lanes; all the seperate exits from each truck-only lanes, and list each individual exit from both the local and express lanes like the ones on Interstate 80 in New Jersey. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

At what point does the level of detail cross over into a travel guide? Vegaswikian 08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. If we do this, then yeah we would have to do exits from local and express lanes, including HOV and such to mainline roads, and all that. Then it comes into a whole nother realm. I think we'd have to make a different exit list, but then we have to add the express lane exits, and more and more questions are asked. I really don't know how to go about this. --MPD ^{T / C} 11:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do these have separate exit numbers? --Holderca1 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Virginia State Route 267 (express-local roads) does not, Interstate 270 (Maryland) (express-local) does not, and I-95/Interstate 395 (Virginia) (HOV roadway) does not. Google does not show exit numbers on Interstate 279 (HOV roadway) either. Some, however, may. Though I'd assume not. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those separate exits need to be mentioned. My reasoning stems from three sources: (1) the fact that no such exit exists in upstate New York, (2) the reasoning above, and (3) these are specialized exits for the mainline, "normal" exits and listing them is a bit on the redundant side. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the only time you should list them is if the mainlines don't have an exit for that road (if that ever happens), otherwise imo it is part of the same interchange and shouldn't be listed separately. --Holderca1 18:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO (being a Californian where there are plenty...) we should list these ones because they can be significant; however, the ones serving as glorified advance notice signs for upcoming exits so people know they have to leave the carpool lane should not be listed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On Interstate 15 in Utah and Interstate 10 in Arizona they do have separate exit numbers; what's more important is that (1) they're separate exits from the left side and (2) the HOV lanes are not barrier-separated. On barrier-separated HOV lanes with separate exits and with very few crossovers to the main lanes, like the Shirley Highway in Virginia (which even jump designations from I-95 to I-395, with the last crossover before the Springfield Interchange being signed for I-95), it might even make sense to hae a separate small exit list for the reversible lanes. About the original question: assuming it is signed as exit 18, I don't see the harm in including it. But if it's not, it should probably just be noted in the notes column. --NE2 03:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Junction lists

Okay, since it is being discussed, lets talk about formally changing this guideline to include all junction lists.

From the guideline, this is the format for exit lists:

County	Location	Mile	#	Destinations	Notes

My proposal for junction lists:

County	Location	Mile	Roads intersected	Notes

We also need to address what roads that should be listed in the junction list since it is not as obvious as the exit lists, obviously anything that has a shield, but what else? --Holderca1 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer that question, I'd say major arterials that are comparable in use to a state highway can be listed. Also, I'd use "Roads intersected" instead of junction in the table header, even if it makes the column wider as a result. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that, that column is typically wider anyways. I made the change above --Holderca1 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with making exit and junction lists use the same standards. Not everything with a shield goes in intersections; every state highway in the "main system" (all in Tennessee, primary only in Virginia, not sure about Kentucky) should, and only major highways of lower classes - for instance State Route 7100 would go on U.S. Route 50 in Virginia but not every subdivision entrance or even every traffic light. I think every interchange should be included, whether or not the intersecting road is numbered. --NE2 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I 100% concur with that. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 21:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, lets see, if the intersecting road is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it is included. I think that should be the standard, although we don't even know the answer to that. So all interstates, US highways, state highways, some secondary highways, major arterial roads. I think if the intersecting road leads to a notable location it should be added such as an airport, national/state parks, etc... --Holderca1 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, [14] is a real example of an interchange on a non-freeway with an unnumbered road, which I listed on U.S. Route 6 in Colorado. --NE2 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, all interchanges should be listed. One thing to note that I noticed you didn't include on the US 6 in CO article is in the notes section , it should be mentioned that the intersection is an interchange. --Holderca1 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if every intersection that happens to be an interchange should be listed. Although most are notable enough to be listed even if it wasn't an interchange, there are probably some that don't deserve mentioning unless the interchange is one in a prolonged series. Take this one near Syracuse between NY 5 and Newport Road (unsigned Onondaga CR 36). The statements above imply that this is worth inclusion in a junction list, when I don't feel it is. (Note: Forget that this is one of several interchanges on this segment of NY 5; I am using this interchange as a specific example.) Saying that all interchanges are worth mentioning is similar to saying all traffic circles are worth mentioning, when in reality no discretion should be made based solely on the type of junction. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's a freeway, we certainly mention all interchanges. Even if it's not a freeway, interchanges are major structures, and when they are located at minor roads they are more interesting, since there's a question of why they put it there. One thing that I would possibly not include is where topography or a railroad necessitates a "cheap" interchange, as with [15] (although BIA-88 is the historic Camino Real and Route 66, but assume it's not) and [16]. But if it's a normal interchange, built for the purpose of separating traffic, or even one built next to a railroad but with "normal" style ramps ([17]), I think it belongs. --NE2 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying you wouldn't include every exit on an interstate? There are many interchanges on interstates that are very much like the one you pointed out. You also have to remember, that the state felt that road was important enough to warrant an interchange, they could of just simply built an overpass with no access. --Holderca1 13:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not I would include every exit on an interstate has nothing to do with this. I already stated that every exit in a series of exits (which is an interstate, more or less) deserves mentioning. My concern is if a rural interchange is found, surrounded by at-grade intersections, connecting a road that isn't much more than a dirt path. In this hypothetical situation, under no circumstances would I include that junction. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But does that situation even exist? I don't think I have ever seen a rural interchange that leads to nothing more than a dirt road. Why would they build an interchange when they could of stuck a couple stop signs on that road. Can you provide an example of where this occurs? --Holderca1 00:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1 at Pennsylvania Route 352. Another is State Road 9 at U.S. Route 24. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's better practice to assume it does than assume it doesn't. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

V60, not sure what exactly those examples are for, but those would both be included in junction lists. We are looking for interchanges with roads that aren't interstates, U.S. highways, state highways, it has to be a road that wouldn't be notable enough for an article and it has to be in a rural setting, there is much more likely to be interchanges to non-notable roads in urban settings. TMF, I am thinking more along the lines of less rules the better, the more rules we throw in the less likely this is going to be followed. I can probably think of a couple hundred things that we could include in this guideline, but who would want to read that, much less follow it, having to come back to the guideline to repeatedly check what it says. I personally would think an interchange out in the middle of nowhere to a road that goes to nowhere is kind of interesting, why did they build it? --Holderca1 12:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an advocate for less rules as well, which is why I don't think we should be including junctions based solely on the type of junction. The road should be included only if it would be included in the list anyway if intersected at-grade. So here's my stance: freeways, you can list everything since that would be an exit list anyway; roads with sporadic interchanges, use common sense, and include the interchanges in the junction list if the road at the interchange is notable. In that respect, I don't believe any rule stating all of this is necessary, since all of this seems like common sense to me. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

@Holderca1: Those examples are regular surface roads and at-grade divided highways having interchanges out of the blue. It doesn't matter what type of road it is.

@TMF: I'd have to agree. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

V60, you missed the entire point here, we are talking interchanges where the intersecting road wouldn't be listed if at-grade, you provided two examples that would be listed regardless of the type of intersection. They may be regular surface roads, but they are also state highways, with wikipedia articles no less. TMF, I can live with that, just not mention interchanges at all in the revised guideline. By my own comment previously, if it rarely if ever happens, why even mention it to begin with. --Holderca1 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try to revive this discussion, since we still have no standards for junction lists two months after this discussion began. I'm going to begin a rewrite in the next few days on a subpage of this page that will incorporate junction lists into the guideline. As for the name of the page, it will likely have to be changed as well. Anyway, I'll post the link to the rewrite when I begin working on it. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)