Talk:Florida State Road 579

Suggested split

I don't think it's a good idea to split the current and former SR 579 write-ups into separate articles. First, they were written together (or in the case of the current 579, rewritten) with the historic 579 written almost as a "follow-up" (after all, how much can be written about a half-mile-long commuter route?). If they are split, they must stand on their own... and to do so would be inviting yet another AfD that can be best avoided. Is the person doing the splitting willing to expand both to quality stand-alone articles? B.Wind 06:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh... these are totally different routes. What is your source for the older SR 579? It seems like a pre-1945 route, designated in 1941, though unfortunately I don't have full information for post-1939 numbers.

As for this article, SR 579 was assigned in 1945 along what is now CR 579 south of US 301. There's also the CR 579 north of US 301. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So you managed to find a predecessor to the predecessor. The reuse of a route number in a different part of the State is not without precedent, as you have seen in other instances (SR 850, for example). B.Wind 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The original SR 579 appeared in the 1956 and 1962 Official Dade County Road Map; it was also included in 1954, 1959, 1960, and 1961 commercial maps covering Dade County (the latter specifically covering southern Dade County). B.Wind 15:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really "the original" SR 579, as the Tampa-area one (now CR 579) was from 1945. Interesting that they'd choose such an out-of-place number, rather than a 9XX. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That should be included in the "Historic SR 579" section as well, as it would add substance to a fairly slim article that needs "fattening up," not division. B.Wind 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, are you sure that this wasn't a County Road 579? The 1941 laws make reference to a lot of county road numbers in Dade County - I don't have that photocopied though, so I can't check if that was a CR 579. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 11:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sure - the Official Dade County Road Maps don't indicate numbered "county" routes. All of the above maps clearly showed them as State Roads. In fact, (Miami-)Dade County has not signed county routes over the past 50 years, if ever. B.Wind 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So maybe it was a CR 579 that was taken over by the state, and the number was kept? That might explain the strange number. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it was always SR 579 (then again, I'm more familiar with those in North Dade and Broward) - it's no more unusual than the current four-block edition (also east-west) in Tampa. 147.70.242.39 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The one in Tampa was once part of 582A, which becomes CR 579 at I-75. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 14:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Florida State Road 579. 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) 01:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)