Talk:Florida State Road 518

Incorrect subject title

This article needs to be completely revised. Not the SR-518 article but the SR-5054 article (if there is one). I clicked on a link for SR-5054 and it redirected me to SR-518, which is incorrect. SR-5054 is a separate road from SR-518. SR-5054, which is unsigned, is Sarno Road in Melbourne. It runs from its junction with Eau Gallie Boulevard to US-1/SR-5 (Harbor City Boulevard), approximately 7-1/2 miles.

Someone needs to change the SR-5054 page from being redirected to SR-518 so it can be edited or written. As I drive this road almost every day, I can do the writing if necessary.

Erzahler (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, fellow US Roads Wikipedians. This is Erz again! I have a question -- perhaps more correct to say a request.

Sarno Road, in this article, is designated as State Road 5054. However, I believe this may be incorrect. I believe Sarno Road is actually a COUNTY road, not a STATE road. I state this for two reasons:

1, When a major repaving project was in progress a couple of years ago, the county (or maybe state) erected a sign stating the project, estimated time of completion, and the road's designation -- which, according to the sign, was designated as CR-5054 (for Brevard County Road 5054). The road is unsigned, which is not unusual, as it is FLDOT's standard practice to NOT erect county signs for relatively-short secondary or tertiary roads, especially those which are entirely within city limits. Sarno Road qualifies as one of these local secondary roads.

2, FLDOT's (apparent) standard for designating state roads, even those which are entirely within city limits, is to post a State Road sign at both ends of the road designated as a state road, including secondary and tertiary roads. Sarno Road has no SR-5054 road signs, nor is there any indication it is a state or county road. This indicates to me that Sarno Road is an unsigned county road, NOT a state road.

Perhaps someone could look into this and report back to this space?!?!?

-- Erz. Erzahler (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think FLDOT violated their rules, and you are partially right. I think Sarno Road is a county road... east of Wickham Road. I think it is a state road west of Wickham Road, until it intersects Eau Gallie Boulevard/SR-518.

While we are on the subject, I can't stand how Brevard County barely posts county road shields.

--TyNoOutlet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Traffic

I inserted for one intersection "In 2015, 36,700 vehicles proceeded eastward towards this intersection on an average day (cite)." This was removed. Roads are built for traffic. Why should traffic statistics, when available, be a forbidden topic? In this case, it demonstrates without being pov, that the road, at this intersection, is being used to a high capacity. The reader may reach that pov on his own. Not up to us to suggest it. Without traffic statistics, road articles mean nothing. Nothing at all. "The ankle bone connected to the shin bone" means nothing unless someone is familiar with humans, anatomy, and what those bones c/would be used for. For roads, too, more is needed than is now available. The articles are nearly worthless without this vital statistic. Student7 (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This says nothing to the reader unless they have the formulas to plug in number of lanes and such into. It's worthless as a bare number. --NE2 16:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No longer sure why we have roads unless to serve traffic. If Wikipedia has insufficient information for a user to analyze traffic, perhaps they should be added so they can. Otherwise roads are gratuitous "civil engineering artwork," whose major function is to employ road workers/contracts. Student7 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A better question is why is that one traffic statistic important? You have to put statistics into context so the reader gets the full picture. Putting one number into the junction list doesn't tell the reader much. If you provide the AADT for the entire route, comparing the AADT of that intersection to overall gives the reader a better idea of how busy the intersection is. –Fredddie™ 19:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is set up so "normal" people can edit articles. There is a place for a note for this intersection. There was a reliable article in the county newspaper about it. I put it in with the WP:RS. I cannot be responsible for dozens/hundreds/thousands of other sites/intersections. I don't have access to that information. Nor are other normal editors expected to for normal, everyday type material. Once editors see that someone is doing something useful they may copy it. We could have considerable information, given years to accomplish that. Right now, there is no information for this road regarding traffic. Disallowing material for insufficiency would be like disallowing stub articles.

Contrast with Turnpikes traversing languishing rural areas. I travel one in a rural state. There are frequently less that six vehicles traveling in both directions for a mile or more. The TP has to traverse that area, but clearly it does not have the use/utility of many other, less expensive roads. But an outsider now, looking at the article has absolutely no idea about traffic utilization.

I would ask the opposite question: why isn't this the most important piece of information in the article, aside from the name and location of the road? Student7 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The original problem was and still is that it was that one single statistic without any context whatsoever, not the ZOMG MUST KILL TARFFIC DATAZ conspiracy theory. I personally have no beef with adding AADT to articles, but I have not seen a good way to do it. Plopping a number into the junction list, however, is not the way to do it. You may be interested in the {{Traffic volume row}} series of templates.

I, for one, completely expect "normal editors" (read: those of us who have been around for 2+ years) to do three minutes of Googling to find some data. That's what I did and I found FDOT's traffic data page. The following is a selection from Brevard County; I found the two segments mentioned in the news article (west of SR 513 and west of SR A1A). The data is from 2012, but that's not too long ago, so it should still be close.

 Segment  Description                           Direction A  Direction B  2-Way AADT    
 1005     ON SR-518, 0.27 MI. W OF SR-513 (UC)  E 16500      W 18500      35000 C 
 0386     ON SR-518, 0.15 MI. W OF A1A (UV)     E 10000      W 9400       19400 C 

I'm no traffic engineer or reporter, but unless traffic has doubled in three years, the FDOT person was misquoted. –Fredddie™ 23:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the template nor the statistics. And no, I insert headlines as they occur. I definitely do not research allied pieces of information in the article to see if they, too, are wanting. Nor do I expect others to do so.

I'm sure the factoid was correct, but may assume weekday volumes, which may be higher. Also, the intersection has been widened to ensure vehicles will make it through the light in n tries. This may have made the road more viable for traffic. I don't know. Clearly there is a question. Student7 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Florida State Road 518. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306153400/http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/Straight-linesOnlineGIS/ to http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/Straight-linesOnlineGIS/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)