Template talk:Infobox road/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This archive page was moved from Template talk:Infobox Interstate/Archive 2 after Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 2#Interstate infoboxes.

Usage

Moved to Template:Routeboxint using noinclude and includeonly tags. --Chris 14:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What is a major city?

I don't know how I feel about the 100k population restriction.

There are cities that are important in terms of geography that just don't have that many people. Cities like Cheyenne, Wyoming (53,000), Odessa, Texas (90,000) and Macon, Georgia (97,500) come to mind. Granted, more cities than I thought have 100,000+ people (Boise, Idaho and Shreveport, Louisiana).

But I think to save space and allow flexibility, we should remove the 100k designation from the template and allow each author to use his or her own judgment. That way, cities like Walla Walla, Washington (23,000) can get their due. --Rob 17:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem... I just don't want every single city the Interstate passes through on the list to save room. --Rschen7754 01:58, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like 100k may be too low out on the east coast. I-95 would have such a long list, from Miami to Washington to Baltimore to Philadelphia to New York to Boston. They all have "suburb cities" (I just made that phrase up.) that are huge. On the list, Newark thru New Haven are arguably suburbs of NYC, due to the existance of commuter railroads primarily running into Penn Station and Grand Central.

As Rob pointed out, raising the limit would exclude many cities considered major in the midwest, so raising it is probably not a good idea.

One idea is perhaps just a limit. Like maybe just take the largest X cities along the route or something like that.

--Engleman 02:45, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

How about just using a list of the control (destination) cities [1] in the route box? That would ensure that important cities like Cheyenne are included even though they might fall under 100,000, and large suburbs over 100,000 are excluded. After all, the control cities had to be considered notable by someone at AASHTO or they wouldn't be control cities ;) Scott5114 21:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

There's an interesting idea, but it would be good to make sure to use only the official ones (it appears as though that list is not entirely official). --Engleman 02:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a few missing 3dis in that list. 355's two control "cities" are Joliet, and the "Western Suburbs" :-). But overall it looks like a pretty good guide... otherwise the sniff test usually would suffice. Definitely odd to see Interstate 196's control city be Chicago... --Rob 14:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The list I linked to shows both official cities and unofficial (the unofficial ones are in green). I agree it would be better to just use the official ones.

As for 3di's I think that most of them are short enough that a listing of all their cities would work. (Interstate 240 stays entirely within the Oklahoma City limits as far as I know, but it might leave the city near its eastern terminus.) The problem with that is when we get huge loops like the 405 or Interstate 435.

The point I'm getting at here is that since most 3dis have no offical control cities, there's no easy answers for them. For instance, signage for I-240 in Oklahoma lists control cities of Lawton and Fort Smith, but the highway doesn't go anywhere near there, it just connects to highways that do. Which means for 3dis there's no one-size-fits-all solution.Scott5114 18:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Also be careful... I-40 never goes to Los Angeles, but that's a control city for I-40 west of Texas. --Rschen7754 23:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• So, what do we want to do with this? Keep on with the 100k limit, or switch over to control cities? Scott5114 02:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Heh heh. Control Cities on the Interstate for 2dis. 3dis often never reach their control city, so common sense is necessary sometimes (see Interstate 172). Some 3dis just don't go into any city you've ever heard of (see Interstate 465). In any event, no more than 2 cities per state is a good idea. If it's a small number of states (less than 3), then no more than 3. If it's an intrastate interstate, no more than 4 cities. On the "lower" end of the scale, include at least one city per state, but be reasonable. I know there's no major cities on Interstate 57 in Missouri, so you don't have to try to find one.

Sheesh. I don't know if even these sorts of guidelines, though they make sense, are of any use. --Rob 03:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with these sort of guidelines... but they shouldn't have to be exact however. For example I point to I-10- it goes through Dallas, Fort Worth. and Houston in Texas. A little over or a little under is fine- 10 cities per state is way too much however. --Rschen7754 03:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a per-state system is a good idea. Look at I-95 through New York. New York City is really the only one that matters, partly because about half of it is within the city limits. The other "cities," New Rochelle and Rye, are terribly dwarfed by New York (not to mention so close) that they are unimportant. Meanwhile, with something like I-86 (E), you'd probably list like five in New York, although some would be much smaller than New Rochelle. What I mean is that a cities-per-state limit is not a good idea because it does not take into account how long the interstate is in that state, and the very differing population densities even just within the same state. --Chris 18:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

My only thing, I've never heard of Corning, New York. I've at least heard of Elmira, New York. But it would be impossible to say "only put a city down if you've heard of it." That makes no sense. If there were some way to rate the relative importance of a city on an Interstate, that would be best. You can even nominate the cities you want to put on the Major Cities list (in the Interstate's talk page), and the top X votes would get in. Whatever works. :-) I'm now doing Interstate 294, and have come to the despairing conclusion that despite my knowledge of the Chicago, Illinois area, I can't name a single city on the Interstate. The tollway is used mostly to go around Chicago, even though it doesn't enter Chicago (except for about 200 feet). Does that make Chicago, Illinois the major city? :-) --Rob 19:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't use this template?

Just a suggestion- let's not put any more routeboxes on pages until we get everything straightened out so we don't have to keep changing articles. --Rschen7754 03:11, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, mostly. It took me an hour to change those 10 pages yesterday! Have we or have we not reached a consensus with the fields being displayed in the route box? I couldn't think of anything else, so I think it's probably okay. For stuff like "do we want to keep the legend on the template?" and "do we keep the Browse State Hwys section?", we can make those changes fairly easily at any given time because changing the template affects everything else. --Rob 19:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. Some changes to the template that I am thinking of WILL require all to be changed. --Engleman 01:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Are there any more major changes that are needed? --Rschen7754 04:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember having a few good ideas, but I went brain-dead when school went into full swing. I'll try and remember... --Chris 00:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge talk pages

Should we just merge talk pages ( for the WP, template, this page, etc.) so we have all our conversations on one page?--Rschen7754 23:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

probably; some of this stuff isn't even directly related to the template

I will most likely begin archiving discussions more than a week old, starting this afternoon or Monday. --Rob 14:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes for 9/20/05

Some things were bugging me that I fixed. Really quick...

1. Spacing should be fixed to what the original creator intended. Words were running up against the green line in Firefox previously.
2. Color breaks apart the gray box for readability. If someone doesn't like that shade of blue (#e6e6ff), replace it with a lighter shade of another color, or a lighter shade of the grey that's already there (lighter than #efefef). Thanks.

Discussion Points

Any agreement on using dark green (#009900) (like Interstate 355) to break up large white blocks? --Rob 16:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• The light blue/gray color alternation improves the readability by leaps and bounds IMO. Looks great. As for the green I'm not too sure about (if I guessed right and you're referring to the green in the junction list on the I-355 page). It might work to break up the jctbox but it also makes it larger. Scott5114 22:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm fine with it as long as it doesn't mess up the size... the routeboxes are already huge. --Rschen7754 02:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with trying not to make the junction list any longer than it already is. The information about the toll barriers would have been there regardless -- to have black, bolded text on white at that particular point in the table completely threw me for a loop and wasn't as readable as opposed to making it white text on dark green. Heck, I'd say only use dark green for informative purposes only, not unlike real road signs. And probably only for 3dis and short 2dis.

A good guide to the size of the junction box would probably be... ensure the junction box is shorter than the article, and truncate if necessary. --Rob 17:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Now there's a good point. Ideally, the routebox should be significantly shorter than the article.

Changes for 9/23/05

Okay... I'd like to make everything in the left columns left-aligned, and keep everything in the right column left-aligned.

The reason I'm posting this here first is to ask... are there any plans to have 3 or more columns in this routebox? --Rob 14:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

One other thing... what's everyone's resolutions? I'm gradually realizing I may be developing for my resolution, when not everyone has 1280 x 1024 resolutions. --Rob 00:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I use 1024 by 768... but keep in mind that some people may have something terrible like 640 by 480. --Rschen7754 01:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the alignment... just as long as the rowspans aren't screwed up, that works. Like if I used <tr><td rowspan=2> for example. --Rschen7754 01:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Please, don't make it any wider. --Chris 05:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Primary vs. Secondary

What's the distinction?

Is it Primary = 2di, Secondary = 3di, or Primary = original Interstate route, Secondary = added Interstate Routes (like Interstate 39, Interstate 43?) --Rob 19:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

With the exception of I-238, its all based on the number of digits. (actully I'm not quite sure why we even have that field; isn't it obvious. and in some cases, 3dis are more important than some 2dis (for instance I-678 links I-95 @ the bruckner interchange with JFK, while I-99 does abolutely nothing useful! ok so that was a bit of a joke (I-99 would never have been designated by AAHSTO; perhaps as I-170 or I-776), but some 3dis re more significant than some 2dis); but it doesn't really make any difference to me. --Chris 21:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. If that's the case, I'd just remove the field from the template. It's impossible to determine the importance of a highway based on number of digits alone; you have to read the article. --Rob 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. While its not just importance, I think they might be officially called that. --Chris 00:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The FHWA log diffrentiates between types of Interstates by the digits (except 238), so that's the classification we use. --Rschen7754 01:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Reg vs. Loop

OK, I've got a question. I'm thinking about starting work on the Oklahoma version of I-240. If you take a look at a map, you'll see that it might be considered a loop, but then again, it never rejoins with I-40. (It used to, until I-44 was extended in the 1980's.) Also, there is some signage that refers to it as the so-and-so memorial loop. What should I put in the route_type? reg or loop? (I'm leaning toward loop.) Scott5114 18:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say reg because there are terminii... the purpose of the loop designation was for routes like... I-495 in DC for example, which has no terminus. --Rschen7754 19:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Exit # --> Exit # or Mile

Can we change Exit # on the template to Exit/Mile #? Some Interstates have wacky exit numbers (Indiana Toll Road) that are sequential. Some Interstates don't have exit numbers (Tri-State Tollway). Some Interstates have neither exit numbers nor mileposts (!) (Interstate 180 (Illinois)). I'm sure some Interstate out there has exit numbers and no mileposts. So I'm not sure what was intended for this column, but Exit # is unclear, possibly unwanted if you meant "Mile #", and occasionally unattainable. --Rob 20:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sequential exit numbers (which aren't considered wacky in the northeast, but the norm) are not a problem, if the each junction is far better known by its exit number than by the nearest milepost. According to the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, the Tri-State Tollway does have exit numbers. I am still unaware of any Interstate without exit numbers. Therefore, I think its best to describe each junction with its more commonly used number, especially if every interstate has exit numbers. --Chris 23:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool map... I actually haven't ever seen it before. Unfortunately, they don't put the exit numbers on the signs, which is somewhat crucial. All of the boards on the tollway system look like this. That said, the map is very, very useful for Interstates on the tollway system. Thanks! --Rob 01:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh that's funny. I don't know what to say. I did find this, which tht map says is the last interchange on the toll road, but I suppose you don't need to go through a toll to get there, but even stranger is that the exit number on the sign isn't 0, which the map says. I guess maybe that it's 160 miles on I-80 from the Iowa border (in other words, they use I-80 numbering there). Also, I think I could be wrong about those being exit numbers. Some stuff is ".5", so perhaps they are just telling the nearest half-milepost. I guess that they probably (at least internally) use those numbers to refer to each interchange. --Chris 02:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. Yes, that particular interchange belongs wholly to the Illinois Department of Transportation, I believe, which is why they start at mile marker 160 there (Torrence Avenue is, I think, exit 161 or 162). Other oddities? Why, I do believe I see the Northwest Tollway marked backwards (east to west instead of west to east)! --Rob 11:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The New York State Thruway is also like that for the I-90 portion. They went north from New York City, then headed west at Albany. --Chris 12:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know of any 2dis with no exit numbers. Interstate 705 has no exit numbers but there we could just use mileposts (either 0 or 1 since it's so short). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What is type3?

Sorry... I had to change the template to stop people from adding in non-interstate junctions... I finally had to delete them on primary interstates because there simply isn't enough room... but anyway, for the type3 field put INTERSTATE if we are putting only interstate junctions in there, and put MAJOR if we are putting all junctions in there. Thanks! I'll fix the routeboxes over the weekend. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)`

Even for "short" Interstates (Interstate 4, Interstate 17, Interstate 88 (west))? --Rob 01:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There it could be either... I'm just trying to not have people who are unfamiliar with the project putting in non-interstate junctions and making the routeboxes big. For I-8 it really doesn't matter though... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Optional Tags...

Added a couple ideas to address shortfalls in the color scheme. They're in Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Interstate_Highways, under the new "Optional_Terminology_for_Junction_Columns" tag. I've kinda been throwing a few (not many!) of these tags up in my junction boxes, so I figured it's not a bad idea to expand their usage. The usage will probably be limited to 3dis.

I am dimly aware that New York City's freeway system basically consists of partial interchanges, so YMMV. Use at your own risk. :-) --Rob 19:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

From one point of view, you are mostly correct, but what is even more common is interchanges that require you to get off onto a service road of either highway (sometimes both) that involve traffic lights. So you can make most manuvers without too much trouble, but you often have to go through sub-Interstate-standard roads. Two great examples, so people unfamiliar with this sort of thing can see it on any decent detailed map (Google Maps works):

• In Queens, Cross-Island Parkway east to Clearview Expressway (I-295 (NY)) south. [2]
• In the Bronx, Bronx River Parkway south to Cross-Bronx Expressway (I-95) east. [3]

So my question is, what do these count as? There is access, but it sucks compared to the quality of interchanges elsewhere.

--Chris 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that perhaps many of these that I am talking about aren't really Interstate-to-Interstate ramps. Many such interchanges are fairly clean. I-87 to I-95 (the ONLY 2dis to intersect within the 5 buroughs) have a complete interchange [4] - highly unusual though, due to the fact that the Alexander Hamilton Bridge (I-95) is so high above the Deegan (I-87), which is also right next to the Harlem River. There are obviously also many 3dis in NY, but those also aren't bad. In the Bronx for instance, all of the interchanges (aside from 87&95 and 278&87, both of which are complete, form kind of like a two triangles that meet at the Bruckner Interchange with I-678. Here is a crappy diagram I made of it: [5] I know, it sucks (it also completely lacks any mention of the Hutch, but that isn't Interstate), but it shows that although only one interchange of the 5 is even more than 67% complete (the 4 outer interchanges are simply a choice between the Bruckner Interchange and the other interchange on that triangle for incoming traffic; traffic from the other 2 simply merge); the bruckner interchange allows all traffic from either triangle to go to either leg of the other; traffic going to/from 678 can go from/to each of the 4 legs except 295 (that is really OK; 295 and 678 are connected in queens by 495; it would be retarded to perform such a manuver; plus it costs at least $6 each way i think).

OK so i got a bit too carried away there, but my point is that the interstate-to-interchange situation is mostly fine. I just mentioned the bronx, but manhattan has NONE (amazing, right, that the center of the city only has 2 interstates even cleanly pass thru it, 95 and 278 (never even goes on manhattan island itself)), statan island has only 1 interstate (278), brooklyn has 2 minor problems (278S-to-495E and 278S-to-478N), and queens is 100% OK (except maybe for I-678 and I-878, but the existence of 878 at that point is questionable, but even if it does, it is 1-way!)

OK so anyway, I did get really carried away, I forgot what we were talking about. I guess those suggestions Rob made are still useful in NYC, especcially the Bronx. Even though you can get where you're going easily, the interchanges on wikipedia are listed seperately, and individually, they aren't complete. Also, I do agree that there are loads of interstate&parkway interchanges that could use much improvement.

If you didn't read all that, see my crappy diagram, which i still think is cool:[6] lol

--Chris 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

TFD

This template has been sent to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. Dan100 (Talk) 15:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)