The Wikipedia roads thread

[vdeane]

It's not theft if the source is cited (as required by Wikipedia these days).  If it's not cited, you should put a note on the articles in question, as the authors broke wikipedia policy.

[Scott5114]

If I go and spend an hour doing research and say "Route 49 was built in 1933" and you use my research to say the same thing on your site, how is that stealing? You just researched and found my site. Even if you didn't properly cite me as a source, I didn't actually do anything to cause the route to be built in 1933. I have no legitimate claim on it. You can steal the way I worded the information, but you can't "steal" the fact itself, and anyone who says otherwise can firmly blow it out their ass.

[rschen7754]

Which is interesting as road articles tend to be either original research or plagiarism - both banned by WP - the latter for obvious reasons, the former a bit less obvious. I guess it's a rare case of pragmatism and content over rules and regulations.

Maybe in the UK Roads project (which the US Roads project has been at odds with for quite a while), but not in the US Roads project. We don't let that stuff fly in the US articles.

[vtk]

A lot of the maps for eastern Interstates and US routes, and possibly some Indiana state routes, should probably be updated to show the newly-opened / signed parts of I-69...

[Scott5114]

I'll ask around about it.

[bugo]

wow!  I just went to my favorite bugaboo - the US 55 page - nice job there!!  I approve of this!

keep it going - I'd love to see any obsolete routes shown with the historic style markers appropriate to when they were last in use. 

and would it be too much to ask to use the state/US cutout format for state-specific US route pages? 

The US 55 page features a "neutered" cutout shield.  It looks silly.  It should be replaced by a state name shield, either Iowa or Minnesota would be fine.

[bugo]

If state-specific specs are available, we use those. California and Oklahoma interstate articles use those states' respective standards.

For Oklahoma, you should use the "prison font" signs.  They're disappearing, but they are technically the newest style and they're unique.

[Scott5114]

Lol no

[NE2]

Who cares if the article sucks shit as long as it has pretty pictures?

PS: your sig rules.

[Special K]

If I go and spend an hour doing research and say "Route 49 was built in 1933" and you use my research to say the same thing on your site, how is that stealing? You just researched and found my site. Even if you didn't properly cite me as a source, I didn't actually do anything to cause the route to be built in 1933. I have no legitimate claim on it. You can steal the way I worded the information, but you can't "steal" the fact itself, and anyone who says otherwise can firmly blow it out their ass.

Lighten up, Francis.

Let's not forget also that you do have to cite your sources, not just to give credit for someone's prior research, but also to provide confirmation that you didn't just make some shit up.

[deathtopumpkins]

Let's not forget also that you do have to cite your sources, not just to give credit for someone's prior research, but also to provide confirmation that you didn't just make some shit up.

Which is the problem using Wikipedia for roads. If I drive a road every day, and actually pay attention to the road from a roadgeek perspective, shouldn't I myself become a valid source? I can't imagine most roadgeeks making something up on a road article, but countless times I've seen a [citation needed] on Wikipedia next to something that is obviously correct, it just happens to be something they observed in person.

For example, say I edit the I-86 (east) article to mention that it is not signed in Binghamton. I have no academic paper on I-86 signage; I don't even have a news article or anything. It shouldn't be necessary, because the fact that I recently drove the road and saw the signage (or lack thereof) should be plenty enough.

Another example: A few years ago I edited the Speed Limits in the United States article's North Carolina section to add US 17 from Elizabeth City to the VA line to the list of non-freeway roads posted at 60 mph. This was based solely on my observation driving the road back when I lived down there. None of the other roads listed have citations, so I didn't worry about it, but isn't this technically not sufficient by Wikipedia standards?

[Scott5114]

Well, yeah, but having never interacted with you before, how do we know you're a valid source? There are people crazy enough to lie about living in Binghamton and seeing I-86 signed there for God knows what reason. Or what if two random people disagree on something? Two local experts arguing over whether it's signed or not. Better to just avoid that can of worms altogether by sticking to valid sources. Many times they are not too difficult to find, anyway; these days DOT map archives are common. Oklahoma even publishes changelogs for some highways with the exact date the Highway Commission approved extensions/reroutes/truncations.

[deathtopumpkins]

Well, yeah, but having never interacted with you before, how do we know you're a valid source?

Which is my point - Wikipedia doesn't, though they should. The fact that someone's a long-time member on here, for example, should go a long way toward indicating that we're experts on roads.

There are people crazy enough to lie about living in Binghamton and seeing I-86 signed there for God knows what reason.

I'm sure there are. But I specified "most roadgeeks", not "most people".

Or what if two random people disagree on something? Two local experts arguing over whether it's signed or not.

That's the one time it should be necessary to require a citation, as follows:
Person A edits an article.
Person B questions the validity of the edit.
Person A responds that he observed it recently driving the road.
Person B is still doubtful so asks for proof.
Person A, B, or even C pulls up a news article or DOT information proving or disproving A's claim, or goes and drives the road themself.

Many times they are not too difficult to find, anyway; these days DOT map archives are common. Oklahoma even publishes changelogs for some highways with the exact date the Highway Commission approved extensions/reroutes/truncations.

Ah yes, but not in cases of a speed limit, or a road being signed or not. To use an Oklahoma example, AASHTO never approved an extension of US 377, but ODOT signed it anyway.
And sure, there are all kinds of MassDOT sources proving that US 1 was moved onto I-95/93 through Boston, but signage still exits for the old routing, and is sparse at best for the new routing.

[vdeane]

For example, say I edit the I-86 (east) article to mention that it is not signed in Binghamton. I have no academic paper on I-86 signage; I don't even have a news article or anything. It shouldn't be necessary, because the fact that I recently drove the road and saw the signage (or lack thereof) should be plenty enough.

The part to the east of Binghamton is actually signed.  Signage on I-81 north has the shields, and I think there's one reassurance marker somewhere eastbound.  Other signage is indeed absent though, as is signage on I-81 (as I-81 does not meet modern interstate standards, and/or because it would end in the multiplex).

[deathtopumpkins]

For example, say I edit the I-86 (east) article to mention that it is not signed in Binghamton. I have no academic paper on I-86 signage; I don't even have a news article or anything. It shouldn't be necessary, because the fact that I recently drove the road and saw the signage (or lack thereof) should be plenty enough.

The part to the east of Binghamton is actually signed.  Signage on I-81 north has the shields, and I think there's one reassurance marker somewhere eastbound.  Other signage is indeed absent though, as is signage on I-81 (as I-81 does not meet modern interstate standards, and/or because it would end in the multiplex).

I was using I-86 solely as an example. Though when I spent last weekend (11/17-18) in Binghamton I never saw a single 86 shield except for the stretch just east of the 81 multiplex, which seemed fully signed. The portion approaching I-84 once you get out of the mountains was also fully signed, just with all the shields covered up.

[hbelkins]

The part to the east of Binghamton is actually signed.  Signage on I-81 north has the shields, and I think there's one reassurance marker somewhere eastbound.  Other signage is indeed absent though, as is signage on I-81 (as I-81 does not meet modern interstate standards, and/or because it would end in the multiplex).

That's hilarious. The route is good enough to carry an existing interstate, but it's not good enough to co-sign a different interstate. 

[Alps]

FTR, I-86 is in fact signed in random places well east of its current end. The "END" banner is uncovered at I-84, even though the Interstate is meant to continue to I-87.

[Duke87]

Or what if two random people disagree on something? Two local experts arguing over whether it's signed or not.

That's the one time it should be necessary to require a citation, as follows:
Person A edits an article.
Person B questions the validity of the edit.
Person A responds that he observed it recently driving the road.
Person B is still doubtful so asks for proof.
Person A, B, or even C pulls up a news article or DOT information proving or disproving A's claim, or goes and drives the road themself.

That's part of the problem. A lot of what we know about roads is considered original research. Here in the community we know who is and isn't trustworthy, and we're good about providing photographic evidence for things when we can, but for Wikipedians outside the roadgeek community it isn't so easy to just trust in all that.

[Scott5114]

Well, yeah, but having never interacted with you before, how do we know you're a valid source?

Which is my point - Wikipedia doesn't, though they should. The fact that someone's a long-time member on here, for example, should go a long way toward indicating that we're experts on roads.

There are people crazy enough to lie about living in Binghamton and seeing I-86 signed there for God knows what reason.

I'm sure there are. But I specified "most roadgeeks", not "most people".

But that's the thing–we don't know who "most roadgeeks" or "most people" are. We don't know if you're an enthusiast who actually likes getting things right or the sort of idiot that posts comments on road articles on news sites. Membership here means nothing–you know as well as I do that this place has had its fair share of people who don't know shit from beans.

And while such a policy might be workable for roadgeek related articles, the site needs one policy to cover everyone, and I assure you such a policy would fall apart pretty quickly when Palestinian "experts" and Israeli "experts" go at it. Actually, it's fallen apart in the road project before. Shall the title of the article be "Oklahoma State Highway 55" or "State Highway 55 (Oklahoma)"? It matters a lot to some people, apparently!!

Ah yes, but not in cases of a speed limit, or a road being signed or not. To use an Oklahoma example, AASHTO never approved an extension of US 377, but ODOT signed it anyway.
And sure, there are all kinds of MassDOT sources proving that US 1 was moved onto I-95/93 through Boston, but signage still exits for the old routing, and is sparse at best for the new routing.

Speed limits are the sort of detail we tend to omit because reading about every single speed limit change on a long route is usually way too much detail and would make the article long and unreadable. That's exactly the sort of thing roadgeek sites are good at covering and we let them cover it. On shorter routes it may be comparatively more important so it might be included. In such a case, I'd imagine there has to be some sort of DOT resource detailing the speed limits. However, finding it might entail digging through straight-line diagrams or a GIS database, or perhaps even scrounging through local laws or doing a FOIA request.

When we run into situations where the signed route doesn't match the DOT inventory of the route, we follow the inventoried route, and note that signage doesn't match. As for US-377, well, I wrote the article on it, tell me how I did Welp, apparently I used an unreliable source. Way to shoot your point in the face, Scott.

[rschen7754]

I tried putting a request in for a map of "Texas State Loop 306" but nothing has happened yet. I guess it's a low priority? But could someone help me with this? (I'm "DCBS18" on Wikipedia"
BigMatt

Unfortunately there's many articles that need maps and few map-makers. Therefore we've given the priority to the articles that are the most complete. However, we can always use your help! I've sent you a welcome message on Wikipedia.

[berberry]

That's part of the problem. A lot of what we know about roads is considered original research. Here in the community we know who is and isn't trustworthy, and we're good about providing photographic evidence for things when we can, but for Wikipedians outside the roadgeek community it isn't so easy to just trust in all that.

Good point, Duke, and I agree.

One thing that seems to be missed here (unless I'm the one who missed it) is that maps can be used as sources.  I've posted links to online, official state maps to source information that either I myself wrote or that someone else wrote, but where the writer was flagged with 'citation needed'.  Historical information can be tricky because it's often difficult to cite with a map, since many states maintain only current maps online.  This is one of the few things that MS has done right; all of the historical state highway maps published by MDOT since the 1920s are available online, so they can be used to document quite a bit of info about dates of construction, old alignments, etc.

But even where old maps are either not available or irrelevant, you should be able to find the info you need if you try hard enough.  Think of a few choice words from whatever information you want to document and search them.  For instance, I wanted to add a fact I had heard about since childhood - that the first stretch of rural, paved US highway was constructed in Mississippi - to whatever article it would have been relevant to, which I didn't know.  I can't remember what the exact search was that finally worked, but I remember spending about a half-hour or so doing nothing but trying different search strings until I found what I was looking for in a US govt document:  that the original routing of US 45 through Lee County, MS utilized a long stretch of the first paved road in the South, constructed in 1915.  I had the fact I wanted and the source, and I added both to the US 45 article.

There are a lot of people who know every bit as much about birds as anyone here knows about highways, but unless those people are certified, published ornithologists then Wikipedia is not going to allow them to self-source any info they might add about birds.  The same goes for highways, as it seems to me that it should.

[NE2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_19_in_Florida#Taylor_County_to_Jefferson_County
"it intersects with Madison County Road 150 (also known as Creek 150)"

Yeah, uh, this is a TIGER screwup where they erroneously expanded CR 150.


zomg mod abuse

[bulldog1979]

I posted over in the Midwest - Great Lakes board, but Monday marks the centennial of the creation of the State Trunkline Highway System in Michigan. With a bunch of help from others, we got the article on the system promoted to Featured Article status in time. About 15 or so minutes ago, when the servers rolled over to tomorrow's date (May 13), the article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as "Today's Featured Article". The article was nominated to run on the occasion of the centennial.

[Desert Man]

Good stuff on the interstate highway system on Wikipedia  , as long it's properly taken care of and (all?) the informative edits are within the online encyclopedia's guidelines or standards.

I used to edit on wikipedia for a few years before I grew tired of it and learned the amount of edits are questionable...or inaccurate.  Apparently, wikipedia has an article of future interstates and takes it with a "pinch of salt". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Interstate_Highways

[formulanone]

Who cares about the articles as long as they have pretty pictures?

Honestly, that's my only interest in improving Wikipedia. The photos tend to offer legitimacy, if things are called into question. (Of course, anyone could doctor a photo, but that's a another matter.)

Some of the major tenets of WP have become muddied: "Assume good faith." and "Don't be a dick", essentially go out the window with some of the petty arguments and administrative-maintenance nonsense that goes on behind the scenes. (I'm not accusing the admins/editors here of such shenanigans, and I understand that if an article is to be improved, it requires the oversight and editorial view of someone who isn't involved nor interested in roads.) While I understand that there's a need for making articles consistent in appearance and content, a lot of it comes across as time-wasting nitpicking, which doesn't interest me.

Sure, sources are nice, and desirable, when available, but really any source is better than none at all, and they seem to be bent out of shape over some of the so-called "original research". I could take a photo of something, and without much doubt, it's instant credibility. But going through some factbook seems to bother others. Isn't taking care of the vandalism and pointless new pages enough (having created a few articles, and waded through the approval process, it seems that maybe 5% are serious pages)?

So yeah, I add photos...I stopped trying to edit or create articles, unless I see an tiny error or two that I can correct and confirm. I don't have the time nor patience for it anymore, so while I do appreciate the work, patience, and help you guys do, it's not quite for me. I can't recall seeing any road articles that really bothered me (unless it was just lacking content).