Service Plazas have many problems

[ran4sh]

For the people replying to this thread: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers (which applies to any community).

Wikipedia is terrible at following its own advice in that regard.

Wikipedia was at one time a great place, I don't go there nearly as much as I used to, NPOV went out the window a while ago.

The other major problem is that there are some "reliable sources" that are cited in Wikipedia, but those sources had themselves been written based on unverified Wikipedia content that often still had "citation needed" tags on it. In other words, a circular reference.

[jeffandnicole]

For the people replying to this thread: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers (which applies to any community).

Wikipedia is terrible at following its own advice in that regard.

Wikipedia was at one time a great place, I don't go there nearly as much as I used to, NPOV went out the window a while ago.

Wikipedia was never known as a great place, and was always known as a place where anyone can write anything with limited factual basis. That's why the needed citations in the first place.

[Scott5114]

For the people replying to this thread: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers (which applies to any community).

Wikipedia is terrible at following its own advice in that regard.

Wikipedia was at one time a great place, I don't go there nearly as much as I used to, NPOV went out the window a while ago.

The other major problem is that there are some "reliable sources" that are cited in Wikipedia, but those sources had themselves been written based on unverified Wikipedia content that often still had "citation needed" tags on it. In other words, a circular reference.

Of course, the problem is, as a Wikipedia editor, how do you ferret that out? This is especially a problem with newspapers, which need to be treated as a reliable source or else the whole damn site would be empty, but newspapers rarely cite their sources for background information, so the only way it can be detected is if they outright copy and paste from the article–which I've seen The Oklahoman do with text that I remember writing myself!

Wikipedia was never known as a great place, and was always known as a place where anyone can write anything with limited factual basis.

[citation needed]

[HighwayStar]

For the people replying to this thread: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers (which applies to any community).

Wikipedia is terrible at following its own advice in that regard.

Wikipedia was at one time a great place, I don't go there nearly as much as I used to, NPOV went out the window a while ago.

The other major problem is that there are some "reliable sources" that are cited in Wikipedia, but those sources had themselves been written based on unverified Wikipedia content that often still had "citation needed" tags on it. In other words, a circular reference.

Of course, the problem is, as a Wikipedia editor, how do you ferret that out? This is especially a problem with newspapers, which need to be treated as a reliable source or else the whole damn site would be empty, but newspapers rarely cite their sources for background information, so the only way it can be detected is if they outright copy and paste from the article–which I've seen The Oklahoman do with text that I remember writing myself!

Wikipedia was never known as a great place, and was always known as a place where anyone can write anything with limited factual basis.

[citation needed]

Newspapers have never been reliable sources, they are about as informative as a roll of Charmin, and significantly less absorbent.

[jeffandnicole]

For the people replying to this thread: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers (which applies to any community).

Wikipedia is terrible at following its own advice in that regard.

Wikipedia was at one time a great place, I don't go there nearly as much as I used to, NPOV went out the window a while ago.

The other major problem is that there are some "reliable sources" that are cited in Wikipedia, but those sources had themselves been written based on unverified Wikipedia content that often still had "citation needed" tags on it. In other words, a circular reference.

Of course, the problem is, as a Wikipedia editor, how do you ferret that out? This is especially a problem with newspapers, which need to be treated as a reliable source or else the whole damn site would be empty, but newspapers rarely cite their sources for background information, so the only way it can be detected is if they outright copy and paste from the article–which I've seen The Oklahoman do with text that I remember writing myself!

Wikipedia was never known as a great place, and was always known as a place where anyone can write anything with limited factual basis.

[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source   

[Scott5114]

Newspapers have never been reliable sources, they are about as informative as a roll of Charmin, and significantly less absorbent.

That's not what "reliable source" on Wikipedia means. A "reliable source" is merely a professionally-published independent source that can be assumed to have some degree of fact-checking oversight. That is, basically, sources that aren't things like blog posts, forum posts, personal websites, social media posts, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source   

That page uses the Wikipedia definition of "reliable source", as described above.

[Bruce]

I was surprised at the number of billboards in Montana compared with Washington, or maybe I'm just used to the billboards close to home.  Maybe some states are more lax about enforcing billboard bans.

Other than the cluster of billboards at the King-Pierce line in Federal Way, the urban sections of interstates in the Seattle area are relatively tidy. There's only a handful I can think of on I-5 (Smokey Point, Boeing Field, JBLM) where they crop up.

[hbelkins]

Newspapers have never been reliable sources, they are about as informative as a roll of Charmin, and significantly less absorbent.

That's not what "reliable source" on Wikipedia means. A "reliable source" is merely a professionally-published independent source that can be assumed to have some degree of fact-checking oversight. That is, basically, sources that aren't things like blog posts, forum posts, personal websites, social media posts, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source   

That page uses the Wikipedia definition of "reliable source", as described above.

Except when you have media outlets running stories based on information strictly from unnamed sources.

Happened yesterday. An online source broke a story that an elected official in an upper midwestern state is having an affair with an aide to a former high-level federal official. The story was based solely on anonymous unnamed sources, with no evidence presented. How can that story be cited in any way as a source for anything when it was based on anonymous rumors and innuendo?

[hotdogPi]

Except when you have media outlets running stories based on information strictly from unnamed sources.

Happened yesterday. An online source broke a story that an elected official in an upper midwestern state is having an affair with an aide to a former high-level federal official. The story was based solely on anonymous unnamed sources, with no evidence presented. How can that story be cited in any way as a source for anything when it was based on anonymous rumors and innuendo?

1. Anonymous to the public doesn't mean anonymous to the person writing the article.
2. Only certain news websites are acceptable as sources (and some are acceptable in some situations and not others). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons creates greater restrictions on sources for living people and those who have been dead for fewer than 6 months.

[HighwayStar]

1. Anonymous to the public doesn't mean anonymous to the person writing the article.

Perhaps not, but at the same time there is zero possibility of verifying the information. Anonymous sources is a license to write whatever they please. As soon as I see that, I close the article.

[SEWIGuy]

1. Anonymous to the public doesn't mean anonymous to the person writing the article.

Perhaps not, but at the same time there is zero possibility of verifying the information. Anonymous sources is a license to write whatever they please. As soon as I see that, I close the article.

That's actually pretty false and a misunderstanding of the practice of journalism.  No one who runs a reputable news service fails to verify the information provided, even through anonymous sources.  No one "writes whatever they please" in these cases.

[Scott5114]

No one "writes whatever they please" in these cases.

...And the people that do write whatever they please do so on the sorts of platforms that are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia.

[SEWIGuy]

No one "writes whatever they please" in these cases.

...And the people that do write whatever they please do so on the sorts of platforms that are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia.

Yep.

[HighwayStar]

1. Anonymous to the public doesn't mean anonymous to the person writing the article.

Perhaps not, but at the same time there is zero possibility of verifying the information. Anonymous sources is a license to write whatever they please. As soon as I see that, I close the article.

That's actually pretty false and a misunderstanding of the practice of journalism.  No one who runs a reputable news service fails to verify the information provided, even through anonymous sources.  No one "writes whatever they please" in these cases.

LOL. "a reputable news source" is about as hard to find as a true Scotsman.

[SEWIGuy]

1. Anonymous to the public doesn't mean anonymous to the person writing the article.

Perhaps not, but at the same time there is zero possibility of verifying the information. Anonymous sources is a license to write whatever they please. As soon as I see that, I close the article.

That's actually pretty false and a misunderstanding of the practice of journalism.  No one who runs a reputable news service fails to verify the information provided, even through anonymous sources.  No one "writes whatever they please" in these cases.

LOL. "a reputable news source" is about as hard to find as a true Scotsman.

Not really, but keep being you.

[HighwayStar]

1. Anonymous to the public doesn't mean anonymous to the person writing the article.

Perhaps not, but at the same time there is zero possibility of verifying the information. Anonymous sources is a license to write whatever they please. As soon as I see that, I close the article.

That's actually pretty false and a misunderstanding of the practice of journalism.  No one who runs a reputable news service fails to verify the information provided, even through anonymous sources.  No one "writes whatever they please" in these cases.

LOL. "a reputable news source" is about as hard to find as a true Scotsman.

Not really, but keep being you.

When a man is too lazy to work, and too cowardly to steal, he becomes and "editor" and manufactures public opinion. –W.T. Sherman

[SEWIGuy]

1. Anonymous to the public doesn't mean anonymous to the person writing the article.

Perhaps not, but at the same time there is zero possibility of verifying the information. Anonymous sources is a license to write whatever they please. As soon as I see that, I close the article.

That's actually pretty false and a misunderstanding of the practice of journalism.  No one who runs a reputable news service fails to verify the information provided, even through anonymous sources.  No one "writes whatever they please" in these cases.

LOL. "a reputable news source" is about as hard to find as a true Scotsman.

Not really, but keep being you.

When a man is too lazy to work, and too cowardly to steal, he becomes and "editor" and manufactures public opinion. –W.T. Sherman

Yes, no greater authority on the journalism professional than a Civil War general.   

[JayhawkCO]

When a man is too lazy to work, and too cowardly to steal, he becomes and "editor" and manufactures public opinion. –W.T. Sherman

When a man is unwilling to actually research real sources, both for things he agrees and disagrees with, he says that everything is fake news. - Me

Chris

[HighwayStar]

1. Anonymous to the public doesn't mean anonymous to the person writing the article.

Perhaps not, but at the same time there is zero possibility of verifying the information. Anonymous sources is a license to write whatever they please. As soon as I see that, I close the article.

That's actually pretty false and a misunderstanding of the practice of journalism.  No one who runs a reputable news service fails to verify the information provided, even through anonymous sources.  No one "writes whatever they please" in these cases.

LOL. "a reputable news source" is about as hard to find as a true Scotsman.

Not really, but keep being you.

When a man is too lazy to work, and too cowardly to steal, he becomes and "editor" and manufactures public opinion. –W.T. Sherman

Yes, no greater authority on the journalism professional than a Civil War general.   

The man hated journalism and for good reason. A real prolific source of quotes about the so called "profession".

[ran4sh]

When a man is too lazy to work, and too cowardly to steal, he becomes and "editor" and manufactures public opinion. –W.T. Sherman

As a Georgian I have mixed opinions about Sherman, but I certainly agree with that quote.

[thenetwork]

The Ladybird Johnson Highway Beautification Act limits the number and density of billboards on interstate highways.

Interstate 15 South of Salt Lake City says, "Hold My Beer"...

[ran4sh]

As for the original topic, I agree that service plazas are not ideal, especially because they are arbitrarily limited in terms of having a certain number of restaurant/fuel businesses in a space with such easy access off and on (with other businesses relegated to being located at the exits), but I do think there should be more roads built that allow drivers to easily exit, reach a business, and easily re-enter.

For example, maybe the on and off ramps at interchanges with many services could be lengthened so that drivers that only want a service and not the intersecting road, can simply use an off ramp and an on ramp and not have to deal with the cross road. (Which would be a first step to eventually just building frontage roads along most freeways)

[HighwayStar]

As for the original topic, I agree that service plazas are not ideal, especially because they are arbitrarily limited in terms of having a certain number of restaurant/fuel businesses in a space with such easy access off and on (with other businesses relegated to being located at the exits), but I do think there should be more roads built that allow drivers to easily exit, reach a business, and easily re-enter.

For example, maybe the on and off ramps at interchanges with many services could be lengthened so that drivers that only want a service and not the intersecting road, can simply use an off ramp and an on ramp and not have to deal with the cross road. (Which would be a first step to eventually just building frontage roads along most freeways)

I fail to see your point.

because they are arbitrarily limited it is not "arbitrary" it is a matter of scaling to the size that is reasonable for the traffic the road carries, the spacing of the plazas, and what can still be an easy in/out solution.

with other businesses relegated to being located at the exits So? Pricing should easily take care of that issue. Since service plaza real estate has less supply, the equilibrium price for it should be higher, which goes hand in hand with being more convenient. Business not in the service plaza pay less for the real estate hence they pay more to acquire customers. Not an issue at all.

[ran4sh]

As for the original topic, I agree that service plazas are not ideal, especially because they are arbitrarily limited in terms of having a certain number of restaurant/fuel businesses in a space with such easy access off and on (with other businesses relegated to being located at the exits), but I do think there should be more roads built that allow drivers to easily exit, reach a business, and easily re-enter.

For example, maybe the on and off ramps at interchanges with many services could be lengthened so that drivers that only want a service and not the intersecting road, can simply use an off ramp and an on ramp and not have to deal with the cross road. (Which would be a first step to eventually just building frontage roads along most freeways)

I fail to see your point.

because they are arbitrarily limited it is not "arbitrary" it is a matter of scaling to the size that is reasonable for the traffic the road carries, the spacing of the plazas, and what can still be an easy in/out solution.

with other businesses relegated to being located at the exits So? Pricing should easily take care of that issue. Since service plaza real estate has less supply, the equilibrium price for it should be higher, which goes hand in hand with being more convenient. Business not in the service plaza pay less for the real estate hence they pay more to acquire customers. Not an issue at all.

You're referring to a single service plaza. I'm referring to the availability of them overall on any given system.

[HighwayStar]

As for the original topic, I agree that service plazas are not ideal, especially because they are arbitrarily limited in terms of having a certain number of restaurant/fuel businesses in a space with such easy access off and on (with other businesses relegated to being located at the exits), but I do think there should be more roads built that allow drivers to easily exit, reach a business, and easily re-enter.

For example, maybe the on and off ramps at interchanges with many services could be lengthened so that drivers that only want a service and not the intersecting road, can simply use an off ramp and an on ramp and not have to deal with the cross road. (Which would be a first step to eventually just building frontage roads along most freeways)

I fail to see your point.

because they are arbitrarily limited it is not "arbitrary" it is a matter of scaling to the size that is reasonable for the traffic the road carries, the spacing of the plazas, and what can still be an easy in/out solution.

with other businesses relegated to being located at the exits So? Pricing should easily take care of that issue. Since service plaza real estate has less supply, the equilibrium price for it should be higher, which goes hand in hand with being more convenient. Business not in the service plaza pay less for the real estate hence they pay more to acquire customers. Not an issue at all.

You're referring to a single service plaza. I'm referring to the availability of them overall on any given system.

No, nowhere do I say a single service plaza. The argument follows for 1, 10, or 100. In any case the spacing of them is usually such that competition between plazas is fairly minimal.