The Wikipedia roads thread

[Scott5114]

We had a small discussion on this subject in one of the other threads but it was kinda off topic so I thought I would start an actual thread for it.

The U.S. Roads Project at Wikipedia is made up of roadgeeks like the kind that populate this forum...a few of our members are active here! We strive to keep our articles accurate and error-free as a point of pride, just like the other Wikipedians in other fields do. Unfortunately our project is very large and wide-ranging and several states don't have a dedicated editor helping them out. Which means errors might get introduced, either by our own fallibility or by drive-by editors introducing them and nobody noticing. If you have an error that needs fixing and can't/don't want to resolve it yourself feel free to post it here.

agentsteel53 was having problems with the accuracy of some of our historic shields. Let's discuss it!

Also, some of you might have concerns with with people uploading your work to Wikipedia when you don't want them doing so. I am an admin on Wikipedia so I will be happy to take care of any of these kinds of problems. You can PM me or email me in these cases.

Finally we can always use some help! If you're interested in contributing (it's fun! really!) but aren't sure where to start or you find things like <ref>'''[[this]]'''</ref> daunting, I'll be happy to point you in the right direction!

[ComputerGuy]

Great! I'll be an active discusser here. We should provide some links to USRD pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USRD

[John]

I have been involved, off and on, with WP:NVSR. I can help anyone trying to get used to wikipedia with coding and all of that sort of thing.

[Voyager]

Can we rename his the inaccurate roads thread? 

Sorry, I had to...

[Scott5114]

Can we rename his the inaccurate roads thread? 

Sorry, I had to...

The point of this thread is for you to point out where it's wrong so we can fix it. So what problem did you find that makes you think our coverage is inaccurate?

[Voyager]

I saw wikipedia and honestly didn't read any of it. Figures...

[Scott5114]

Ah-ha!

[Chris]

What I really miss on wikipedia are traffic volumes. I think only a few articles have traffic volumes, mostly as in "this bridge is one of the busiest in the world with over 300,000 AADT" - and then a link to some kind of old newspaper article.

I'm kind of a traffic volume geek too, downloaded as much as possible from every DOT, but some DOT's have those stupid interactive maps that don't work properly or slow. I like to have XLS or PDF files 

Anyhow, it would be a hell of a job to keep all wikipedia articles up-to-date with traffic volumes.

[Alex]

What I really miss on wikipedia are traffic volumes. I think only a few articles have traffic volumes, mostly as in "this bridge is one of the busiest in the world with over 300,000 AADT" - and then a link to some kind of old newspaper article.

I'm kind of a traffic volume geek too, downloaded as much as possible from every DOT, but some DOT's have those stupid interactive maps that don't work properly or slow. I like to have XLS or PDF files 

Anyhow, it would be a hell of a job to keep all wikipedia articles up-to-date with traffic volumes.

As you may have seen, I started ADT data for all the Interstates, and it took a long time to compile that, and now its way out of date. Additionally some states, like Texas, wanted to charge for ADT data, so I never got every state's information. I won't be updating that information again either, as it was very time consuming.

[Chris]

Additionally some states, like Texas, wanted to charge for ADT data, so I never got every state's information. I won't be updating that information again either, as it was very time consuming.

Whoa!

check it out 

[Scott5114]

What I really miss on wikipedia are traffic volumes. I think only a few articles have traffic volumes, mostly as in "this bridge is one of the busiest in the world with over 300,000 AADT" - and then a link to some kind of old newspaper article.

I'm kind of a traffic volume geek too, downloaded as much as possible from every DOT, but some DOT's have those stupid interactive maps that don't work properly or slow. I like to have XLS or PDF files 

Anyhow, it would be a hell of a job to keep all wikipedia articles up-to-date with traffic volumes.

Hm, that's an idea. I pitched it to the other guys; let's see what they think of it.

[ComputerGuy]

WA uses AADT data

[agentsteel53]

I just got the shields from Wikipedia and put them next to each other.  It literally took 5 minutes.  In my opinion, the 15 in the photo you posted is too narrow (Series C?) for the shield.  I-99 doesn't bother me like it does some people.  I just don't want US 15 to be truncated to Williamsport.

ah, good old Wikipedia, using '70 spec shields for its US-55 article.

the 15 could probably use Series D digits as it is a 1 1/2 digit number.  I think NY's policy back in the day was D for single digits, C for two, even for routes 11 and 15.  (I can barely tell the difference between a Series C and a Series D digit "1" so don't ask me for sure on 11.)

as for why I dislike the '70 spec - it's just an aesthetically displeasing mishmash.  A "design by committee", almost.  Just this morning, looking at California's 1957 spec cutout vs the '70, I was struck just how hideous the '70 was even compared to the '57, which is a tiny bit wider than the "classic" shape and could likely support two Series D digits just fine.

[Scott5114]

I just got the shields from Wikipedia and put them next to each other.  It literally took 5 minutes.  In my opinion, the 15 in the photo you posted is too narrow (Series C?) for the shield.  I-99 doesn't bother me like it does some people.  I just don't want US 15 to be truncated to Williamsport.

ah, good old Wikipedia, using '70 spec shields for its US-55 article.

the 15 could probably use Series D digits as it is a 1 1/2 digit number.  I think NY's policy back in the day was D for single digits, C for two, even for routes 11 and 15.  (I can barely tell the difference between a Series C and a Series D digit "1" so don't ask me for sure on 11.)

as for why I dislike the '70 spec - it's just an aesthetically displeasing mishmash.  A "design by committee", almost.  Just this morning, looking at California's 1957 spec cutout vs the '70, I was struck just how hideous the '70 was even compared to the '57, which is a tiny bit wider than the "classic" shape and could likely support two Series D digits just fine.

At the time that we started making proper vector shields on Wikipedia the only MUTCD we could dig up was the 2003 one because that was the only one on the FHWA site. We hadn't found any older ones.

That said we do have 1961, 1948, and 1928 shields now, thanks largely to your efforts to inform everyone about the differences.

[agentsteel53]

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? 

[Scott5114]

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.

That's the general idea!

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

But that contradicts the above

[agentsteel53]

But that contradicts the above

I mean to use the latest spec for the overview pages (i.e. "US Route 66") and to use a state-named 1948 spec for something like "US Route 66 in Illinois".

[NE2]

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

[Scott5114]

But that contradicts the above

I mean to use the latest spec for the overview pages (i.e. "US Route 66") and to use a state-named 1948 spec for something like "US Route 66 in Illinois".

I can see why you would suggest that but we always try to stick with the most recent spec that was in use for that segment. For most articles, that'll be the '70 spec. (I think we use the '61 specs for Arkansas since that's what they post–we should anyway–I'll check in just a bit).

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

[agentsteel53]

I can see why you would suggest that but we always try to stick with the most recent spec that was in use for that segment. For most articles, that'll be the '70 spec. (I think we use the '61 specs for Arkansas since that's what they post–we should anyway–I'll check in just a bit).

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

then hopefully you go with '61 spec for the several states still using it.  Arkansas indeed, and also Mississippi comes to mind.

and as for the extinct routes, please do put up '26 spec for things like New Mexico US 366 and whatnot.

[bulldog1979]

I can see why you would suggest that but we always try to stick with the most recent spec that was in use for that segment. For most articles, that'll be the '70 spec. (I think we use the '61 specs for Arkansas since that's what they post–we should anyway–I'll check in just a bit).

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

then hopefully you go with '61 spec for the several states still using it.  Arkansas indeed, and also Mississippi comes to mind.

and as for the extinct routes, please do put up '26 spec for things like New Mexico US 366 and whatnot.

I'm trying with Michigan. I have the 1948 series of diamonds created and ready to deploy to the articles when I get the 1919 series made and remake the 1926 series. If I'm going to change all of the cutouts in the articles, I will do it when I get the full sets made. The problem is that the typefaces don't exist pre-1948. We have a bot that will take a template and a list of numbers and output/upload all of the shield graphics we could want in SVG format... but only if it has the typeface available.

That said, the other day, some anonymous editor changed the M-56 shield on the M-21 article to the 1926 cutout, even though the number was retired in the 1980s. I guess he was confused by the other related routes (M-21A and M-210) that were pre-1948 and wanted everything to match! Oh well.

[Michael in Philly]

Hi -

I just visited the Wikipedia page for I-95 in Maine and was disappointed to see the old exit numbers have been removed from the exit list.  (I mean, of course, they used to appear alongside the current ones.)  On the chance that that was done by someone here, I think that we should really hesitate before removing historic information that someone may be interested in.  Just my two cents.

That said, I'm very non-participative on Wikipedia - I think I've done one edit ever - but know how to get at the history page.  Would clicking on "undo" in the right places make deleted information visible to me without changing it for the public?

[1995hoo]

Hi -

I just visited the Wikipedia page for I-95 in Maine and was disappointed to see the old exit numbers have been removed from the exit list.  (I mean, of course, they used to appear alongside the current ones.)  On the chance that that was done by someone here, I think that we should really hesitate before removing historic information that someone may be interested in.  Just my two cents.

That said, I'm very non-participative on Wikipedia - I think I've done one edit ever - but know how to get at the history page.  Would clicking on "undo" in the right places make deleted information visible to me without changing it for the public?

The best way to do this is often to display the history and then click the "cur" link to the left of the past revision you're interested in seeing. It will highlight the differences between the current version and the old one. If you use "prev" it will show the differences between that version and the immediately-preceding one.

It's not a foolproof method, but it's often the easiest way to display changes. You can always view the full text of any old revision by simply clicking on the time and date in the history–all old article versions are saved. But doing that isn't always helpful because it won't always be apparent where something was changed.

The "undo" idea may not work because often it will say "this edit cannot be undone," usually if there are multiple conflicting edits since then. But yes, you can always try clicking "Undo" and then simply do not save the page after you click it–instead use your "back" button or click somewhere else.

[BigMattFromTexas]

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

[bulldog1979]

Hi -

I just visited the Wikipedia page for I-95 in Maine and was disappointed to see the old exit numbers have been removed from the exit list.  (I mean, of course, they used to appear alongside the current ones.)  On the chance that that was done by someone here, I think that we should really hesitate before removing historic information that someone may be interested in.  Just my two cents.

That said, I'm very non-participative on Wikipedia - I think I've done one edit ever - but know how to get at the history page.  Would clicking on "undo" in the right places make deleted information visible to me without changing it for the public?

The general guideline looks to be that old exit numbers will be removed from an article when the state DOT has removed transitional signage, no longer publishes the old numbers on maps distributed to the public or about 5 years. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information". Once the transition is complete, the specific old exit numbers aren't really useful for the general public that reads our articles. Roadgeeks might different levels of interest, but Wikipedia is written for a general audience. (Trust me, we get enough crap from some people on the site for even writing highway articles in the first place...)