Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
Emblem-important.svg See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

Insertion of a rail-only right of way[edit]

Someone recently attempted to insert a rail-only right of way into a junction list, listing only {{rint}} into the destination column instead, as WP:RJL#Tables basically says, {{jct}}, a road name or destination name presented on guide signs.[1] Is there any consensus for this? Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There is not. --Rschen7754 14:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't say that I personally approve of that change. One of the concepts we've slowly been integrating into articles is that whenever a graphic appears, there's a caption of some sort for it. At the top of the infobox, where the primary marker for the highway appears, the name appears below it. Good articles have captions for the maps in the infobox. In a RJL table, the names of the highways referenced appears after the markers in each row of the table. So at least on that score, the edit was deficient because the template only added an icon without any extra text.
As for the rail-only line in the table, I don't quite see that as useful information in keeping with the overall purpose of the table. We've used {{jctplace}} to insert where highways transition from freeways or expressways and back to surface highways or where express–local configurations begin and end, and that's similar to the rail-only situation, but I'm not convinced that it is a status that really affects vehicular traffic. For that reason, I wouldn't include it. Imzadi 1979  17:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
At the bottom of the slippery slope, we'd have to come up with inclusion criteria for level crossings because there'd be so many to add. This seems more like a job for prose anyway, so I'm !voting no. –Fredddie 23:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
We already have a "sliding scale" for things like bridges, bodies of water, rest areas, and tunnels as "not interchange features" being listed in the junctions list. So I agree with Fredddie's point that it's a slippery slope. However, we're already on a slippery slope. There are already cases where we've had edit wars with people adding bridges that don't even have wikipedia articles about them to exit lists, because "hey this bridge is listed there so what about bridge B". An extreme example, most most Wikipedia articles Tunnels are allowed on the exit list and every tunnel is listed. However, on Interstate 70 in Colorado, some tunnels are missing from the exit list. This was done by consensus (after some minor edit warring) as some of the tunnels on I-70 are short and non-notable. I view rail crossings as "yet another" instance of non-intersection features being included in the exit list.
On a highway as long and as complex as California State Route 1, I would say no way should we add rail crossings. The infobox is complicated enough as it is, without opening the door for rail crossings (of which there are undoubtedly dozens on this route). On a highway that has 10 entries in the exit list, I would consider allowing railroad crossings. On a highway that has 100 entries in the exit list, no; same as we do with things like bridges, tunnels and view areas.
If we do allow railroad crossings, there is a tougher issue to manage. Roads are mostly publicly owned and their official name and owner is a matter of public record. However, that's not the same for railroads, where the owners, and operators situation is much more complicated, and sometimes not even documented. For example, in the edit to CA-1 that started this thread, the lines were listed by their MUNI route numbers. However, that says nothing as to who owns the track or it's official name, and may not be correct. It may be MUNI owned track, it may be owned by a private company and the public agency is either granted trackage rights, or outright leased the track. For a well sourced exit list, it creates a more complicated web to untangle. Dave (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I am completely against adding railroad crossings to junction lists since railroads and roads are different modes of transportation and its not really noteworthy to mention the crossings whether at-grade or grade-separated. However, it is acceptable to include an interchange that serves a train station, such as the one serving Cornwells Heights station along Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania. Dough4872 01:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Leave it to the route descriptions, and some linear maps. And yes interchanges and intersections that serve railroad station are not just acceptable, they're a good idea. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

RJL colors[edit]

Recently, WMF updated its palette of colors (view here) in order to improve readability for people who don't see colors well. I'd like to propose using some of those same colors in order to unify our project with the rest of the encyclopedia.

Color key
Current Color Proposed color Use Notes
#ddffdd #f5fdf4 (GREEN90) Concurrency terminus
#d3d3d3 #c8ccd1 (BASE70) Closed Previously complete and open, but now closed (temp. or perm.)
#ffff99 #fef6e7 (YELLOW90) HOV only Interchange/intersection only accessible to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV)
#ffdddd #fee7e6 (RED90) Incomplete access Some ramps/movements missing
#dcdcfe ETC/Tolled Interchange or bridge requires the use of electronic toll collection or is otherwise tolled as an exception to the rest of the roadway
#ffdead Unopened Interchange/intersection being constructed, not yet open to traffic
#dff9f9 #eaf3ff (ACCENT90) Route transition Indicates a transition from one route number to either another route number, or a section without a route number, along a named road
#dcdcfe stripes ETC test Don't take this too seriously, it's only a test

Two of the colors are not listed on the palette, so I am not suggesting any changes to those colors at this time. –Fredddie 03:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with RED90, YELLOW90, and BASE70, and to a lesser extent ACCENT90. GREEN90 looks more like light blue than it does light green to my eyes. -happy5214 03:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the merits of the proposal. I agree with Happy5214 about the green color, and I also think Yellow90 and Red90 are kind of close in color (depending on the angle I view it from on my screen). -- LJ  03:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I would have liked to see a GREEN80 or YELLOW80 just to see what other options there were. –Fredddie 03:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Random thought: I wonder if we shouldn't split the ETC and toll colors so that they aren't the same. They're not really supposed to be used at the same time in the same article, but it happens. If so, I'd propose retaining a purple shade for ETC. Then I'm tempted to use green for toll, changing the concurrency terminus color to something else. The other option would be to use a yellow for toll and reassign the HOV use a different color. I'm not pleased with the YELLOW90 at all, and I'd suggest a replacement option. Imzadi 1979  04:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
See Pennsylvania Turnpike for an RJL that uses both meanings for the ETC/toll color. I agree that using the same color is confusing and that we should find a second color for one of them.  V 03:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I just did a proof of concept that striping the cell could work. Not that we want to do that, but it seems to be an option. –Fredddie 03:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The GREEN90 shade is actually closer to our existing route transition color on my screen, so I'm thinking that it should be reassigned there. Maybe the toll color could be the existing #ddffdd color, and we either use the ACCENT90 shade for concurrency termini, or find another color from the palette? Imzadi 1979  03:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Replying after the edit conflict, but I like the stripes; they would allow use to keep a linkage between ETC and toll (both involve money) without requiring us to use two different colors. Imzadi 1979  03:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The green and pink stripes can be useful when concurrency terminuses have incomplete access. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
And I'm pretty darn sure they're terrible for accessibility. I have no personal problem with the stripes, but I think having them defeats the purpose of redoing the colors more than a bit. -happy5214 00:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

LGA should be removed from Australian example[edit]

I've tried raising this at Template talk:AUSinttop but no one's answering, so I'll try here: the Australian template shouldn't include the LGA (Local Government Area). Presumably someone thought it was the Australian equivalent to a county in the UK or USA, but it's not. They're purely an administrative thing and never used when referring to geographical locations. They're not used in postal addresses. And, on the point of this article, they're not referred to in travel destinations. To take the example in the article, no one travelling from the 4th entrance to the last would say, "I'm travelling from South Perth council area to Murray Council area"; they'd say "I'm travelling from Como to Ravenswood". The LGA adds unnecessary information, and clutters the table. It should be removed, both from the template and from this style page. Adpete (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Evad37: --Rschen7754 22:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There was some discussion about four or five years ago when junction lists first started to be converted to follow this MOS page (but I can't seem to find it at the moment). Also of note is the WP:AURD/RJL project standard/advice page from WikiProject Australian Roads (which includes LGA). Anyway, the LGA column isn't pointless – it provides some context between somewhere in the state and this very particular location for the "State subdivision" column mentioned at MOS:RJL#Standard_columns. Plus for roads which aren't controlled by the States, the LGA would in almost every case be the auhority in charge of the road. State-based regions could possibly be an alternative with more 'geographic', but the boundaries can be confusing as different regional systems can have regions with the same or similar names, but different boundaries (e.g. Regions of Western Australia). LGAs at least have a single specific boundary. And when driving along major roads that cross LGA boundaries, it is quite common to see "Welcome to..." and/or "Thanks for visiting..." signs for LGAs. You can might get more comments and more Australian editors' opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads. - Evad37 [talk] 00:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I don't agree with those arguments but I'll raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads as suggested, when I have the time. Adpete (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggest we resolve this discussion by a vote[edit]

Hi all, I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Australian Roads and an avid editor to highways and motorways, especially in NSW and ACT. This debate could go back and forth forever. In order to bring the matter to conclusion in a timely manner, I suggest that Adpete succinctly propose the arguments in favour of removing the LGA from MOS/Rjl in a format similar to {{Template:Merge to}}. Then each person may respond in the format of either Support or Oppose and state the reasons for their case. After say, ten days (given the time of year when many people are on breaks), there should be a count of the for and against votes and then a decision made on whether we include LGAs or remove them. Finally, the best place for this vote to occur is at Template talk:AUSinttop  – and not here or at Talk:WP Australian Roads, where there is extensive discussion on the subject. That's my comments for the time being. Rangasyd (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Junction list colors for toll and ETC[edit]

I have concerns with the junction list colors that need to be addressed. The colors for ETC and toll are an identical shade of purple, which can be confusing if a road has both ETC only tolls and traditional toll facilities. Is there a way we could differentiate between the two and use two different shades of purple? Dough4872 00:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

For those who aren't aware, "ETC" is Electronic Toll Collection, a relatively new phenomena pioneered in the late 1990s where cameras scan a licence plate to charge the vehicle owner based on distance travelled. My only comment is: why do they need separate colo(u)rs? - Floydian τ ¢ 02:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The reason is that they're supposed to be mutually exclusive within the same article, but apparently people don't get that concept. For a toll road, an interchange that is restricted to usage by drivers paying via ETC (electronic toll collection, whether by plate or transponder) is the exception to the general rule that warrants the highlight. For a non-toll road, a bridge or interchange involving a toll is the exception to the general rule that warrants the highlight.
If we're going to allow both situations to be highlighted in the same article, we'd need two separate colors, not separate shades. So far, we have in use red, orange, yellow, green, blue (cyan), purple and gray for incomplete, under construction, HOV-only, concurrency termini, route transitions, toll/ETC and closed/former. If I were to reconfigure the color mappings and separate the toll and ETC cases, I'd use green for toll (as the color of money) and leave purple for ETC (the color used for ETC signage), which would mean we'd need a new color for concurrency termini. The only basic color not in use that would not require the usage of white text is a lighter shade of brown unless we could pick a shade of blue that worked and was still distinct enough from the cyan. Imzadi 1979  02:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it really that confusing, given that colour isn't (or shouldn't be) the only way the information is imparted? – i.e. the notes column should also specify the tolling. Do you have particular examples to illustrate your point? - Evad37 [talk] 03:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we can use green for toll and purple for ETC while using a different shade of blue for concurrency termini. The Pennsylvania Turnpike article has both the toll color for the toll booths that mark the end of the ticket system and the ETC color for the E-ZPass only exits, so we need differentiation there. Also, Interstate 95 in Maryland has both traditional toll plazas and ETC express lanes. Dough4872 03:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
At least in the turnpike case, the toll booths should not be colorized because it's a toll road. The ETC-only exits should, because they're the exception to the general rule. Imzadi 1979  04:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
But the I-95 MD case is a good example why we need two colors, the two toll booths along with the ETC express lanes are exceptions to what is otherwise a free highway. Dough4872 04:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Jctbridge template not showing dual locations for crossings[edit]

I just added two river crossings to Interstate 480 (Ohio) but couldn't show both of the municipalities at each in the location column – a city line runs down each river – because Template:Jctbridge doesn't recognize "location1" and "location2" like Template:Jctint does. For now the respective westernmost cities are shown, with the easternmost commented out right below in the code. (As an aside, I also left the mi/km columns blank since I don't know what reference point is used for bridges). Mapsax (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

In those cases, the location for the bridge is usually the river, and not necessarily the cities. As for the one, since the bridge doesn't have a name, or if it does, it doesn't have an article, I removed that crossing completely. The primary purpose of these tables is to list the junctions/exits, and as it's been noted before, a bridge isn't a junction. We do include major bridges and tunnels, which usually means those structures are independently notable and have a separate article. That, or the body of water is especially significant. Otherwise we run the risk of cluttering the tables with every little creek or stream. Imzadi 1979  19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Per your first sentence: I see this implied in the examples on the MOS/RJL main page, but I was using the Usage notes at the Jctbridge template as my guide, and there is no mention of that there. Whoever oversees those notes probably should add it. I will defer rather than be BOLD at this point. As for the omitted crossing: I'll admit that that one was a toss-up, but what decided it for me was that while the crossing has no article, the river does, in addition to the crossing being a high-level bridge and a local landmark. I was poking around a little bit before the edit to see if it had a name, and if it had, I might have added a red link, that's how notable I saw it. I won't lose sleep with it not being there, but, again, maybe a mention of notability parameters should also be added to the template's usage notes. And while I'm on that kick, the "mile" entry there should also address my parenthetical above, since I still don't know which figure to use in the respective remaining entry; I have three from which to choose per the ODOT straight-line diagram: the west end, the city boundary, and the east end.
It's true that none of this is crucial to the article, but it the template's there, we might as well use it, and use it correctly. Mapsax (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mapsax: usually, for mile posts, I use a single point if it's an intersection, but a range if it's something like a bridge. When it comes to interchanges, if the cross road is divided, I use a range again for the two points where each carriage way crosses/is crossed. Imzadi 1979  14:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)