Talk:Bundesautobahn 1

Format of the exit list

The last version by SPUI is a revert of the version by Doco that was explained by SPUI "holy god that uglified it".

IMHO the SPUI-version looks way uglier. Additionally, the format proposed by Doco follows the standard used for Autobahn articles in de.wikipedia which should make maintainance much easier. Bundesautobahns 2, 7, 8, 27, 40, 46, 52 and 555 use the same format, so some form of standardization may be in order.

I don't want to sart an edit-war, so I'm asking for opinions here.--Qualle (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see any purpose in putting all the exits over on the right. It makes it impossible to add notes about the interchanges, and looks bad on small resolutions, especially since the text size has to be increased to read it at the same size as normal text. It also doesn't show the configuration of the interchanges. --SPUI (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What purpose does mentioning the configuration of the interchanges serve? Except for rare exceptions (which can be mentioned in the article) exits allow entering and leaving the Autobahn in/from both directions. I fail to see the significance of the difference between and . What other kind of information from the present version would be lost in Doco's version? Sections that are E-Routes can (and should) be mentioned in the article's text, an E-Route entering, leaving or crossing can be indicated by a E123. --Qualle (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference between those maps is that those are the actual interchange configurations. However, the main thing I am objecting to is putting it over to the right. Why is this done? It seems too stupid for words. --SPUI (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As Qualle says, special configurations can be mentioned in the text. I also find it much better to have additional information, like special notes about interchanges, in the text rather than in a table. This is an encyclopedia, not a road map.

You consider the right-aligned list "stupid", and I'd say the configuration maps are "stupid"; so why don't we just take out the things we regard as "stupid" in the other version, i.e. use the compact format, but place it in a section of the text and not into a box on the right? —da Pete _(ノート) 07:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh,a 2003 edition of the ADAC Maxi-Atlas that I own suggests that Gerolstein will be a folded diamond...Ranma9617 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This aerial photo by the Landesbertieb Straßenbau Rheinland-Pfalz suggests otherwise. Since they are the ones planning the Autobahn, it seems likely that they know - but then again, I still don't get the importance of mentioning the exact configuration in the first place. As long as it allows you to enter and leave the Autobahn from/to any direction, the actual configuration of the Anschlussstelle is quite irrelevant. Especially since this information is subject to change. For example, the Kreuz Köln-West is not a simple cloverleaf anymore [1] and the Kamener Kreuz is currently being redesigned [2]. A far more relevant information would be the number of lanes a certain secion of the Autobahn has...--Qualle (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW - the temporary exit at Daun-Rengen (which is called Exit 118, Gerolstein) was opened in December 2005 [3], but it doesn't have any similarity with the graphics used, since it leaves the Autobahn to the side [4] and ends in a roundabout [5]... --Qualle (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Something else: If you ever plan to make a similar list for Bundesautobahn 3 or 40 I'd love to see a diagram for Kreuz Kaiserberg ;-) Take a look: 51°26′31″N 06°48′19″E - Can you guess its nickname? --Qualle (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the User:SPUI exit list (which is a horribly, horribly ugly mess in my opinion) to the autobahnbox template that I put up yesterday. Most Bundesautobahn articles (save one or two that didn't catch my attention yet) use that box by now. Yes, it -does- have some issues (namely the lack of images, but that's a Commons problem) but let's try for an uniform look here, unless someone's crazy enough to come up with a template that makes the people on en: happy AND rewrites all the exit lists we have on de. (Read: Not Gonna Happen.) --Doco 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so german-centric - you can add nl and pl to your list and I suspect there are even more WPs that use the autobahnbox...

BTW most images should work again - there was an incompability between Mediawiki's svg-handling and Illustrator's svg-output introduced a week ago. I saved the images in Inkscape and re-upped them, so clearing your cache should bring the images back. If not, please tell me which ones aren't working. --Qualle (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to RfC

I saw your RfC and thought I'd respond, as a potential user of the article, not an expert. All I know about autobahns comes from driving across Germany and back again some years ago. If I was planning a journey using this road, I would probably use a journey planning site like Michelin or the AA (UK). I would not expect to see a map of all the interchanges in the wikipedia article. What I liked about this article was the extra information, for example about where you might find tailbacks. So my view is that yes, the infobox is too large and you should concentrate on including extra information. It is always useful to know about places to stop off and rest/eat/stay. Itsmejudith 11:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above - try writing the more important (to readers) information in continuous prose, rather than using a table. This will obviously make the page a lot more easy on the eye and help the casual reader. Martinp23 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, it is good with a lot of infomation hidden in the table. We don;t need to know about every junction, so it might be better to break down the table into a number of sections. You could have a level two heading "Features" and break that down with level 3 headings into things like "Service stations" and "Proposed routes". This would make the information more helpful to a user. Martinp23 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Route map

The infobox route map is totally broken and I have no idea how to fix it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• It seems you accidentally removed a " { " symbol from the route map, which broke the whole thing. Since that was the only thing you changed in your edit, I have undone the edit. :-) Cheers, Bicycle bell 11:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Eiffel Gap

The section about the Eiffel Gap says this will take till 2018 before it is ready. It is now the second half of 2022, and this is still not ready. Does anyone have a current estimate when it will be ready? Else, it's better to remove this sentence as it is clearly false. Abigail-IV (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)