Log!
As many of you know, I've promulgated an unofficial Kentucky route log website for many years, but I've never really completed it. Kentucky has a lot of state routes, and they change a lot.
But are unofficial logs like this obsolete now? Or do they just plain old bip? I don't know if I have the time or energy to complete this log in its current format, but these days, with the availability of shapefiles, would it be best if I just have the log write itself from that? I don't want to throw away all the incisive commentary I've added to the log, but I can probably include it somehow.
So what's the verdict?
Quote from: bandit957 on November 19, 2018, 11:37:23 AM
Log!
As many of you know, I've promulgated an unofficial Kentucky route log website for many years, but I've never really completed it. Kentucky has a lot of state routes, and they change a lot.
But are unofficial logs like this obsolete now? Or do they just plain old bip? I don't know if I have the time or energy to complete this log in its current format, but these days, with the availability of shapefiles, would it be best if I just have the log write itself from that? I don't want to throw away all the incisive commentary I've added to the log, but I can probably include it somehow.
So what's the verdict?
I created one for West Virginia about 16 years ago, but haven't updated it in eons. I just haven't had the time or initiative.
And as badly as I hate to say it, Wiki has rendered a lot of the route log sites obsolete. Why should I go to the trouble of updating my page when some Wiki enthusiast somewhere gets their kicks by posting to that site?
As for Kentucky, we're approaching 4,000 numbered state routes, plus in at least one of the western Kentucky highway districts, they sign the 6000-series frontage roads too. Kentucky has a number of places where route information can be obtained online.
I have given a lot of thought about turning my WV page over to anyone who might want to take it over -- or at least taking the links to it down but leaving it as a "hidden" feature.
Same for exit lists, too. Wiki has made many of them obsolete as well, and I don't have the graphics skills to mock up exit signs to include in one. Plus, I never got my exit list page finished (I-71 and Hal Rogers Parkway are missing, and there have been changes to the other routes as well as new interchanges have been built.)
I have exit lists on my site, but no route log (another site already has one that is better than anything I have time to do, plus Wikipedia and Travel Mapping are also good sources). IMO a nice exit list can look nicer and be more informative than the Wikipedia ones. Compare my list (http://nysroads.com/i787list.php) and the Wikipedia one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_787#Exit_list) for I-787, for example.
For what it's worth, the format for my exit lists was inspired by Upstate NY Roads.
I had one on a website I created for NJ's I-295 and a few other routes which I treasured. Personal web pages were fun to build but sometimes became a hassle. I never had the drive or initiative to add other routes, especially when others were doing the same. The Internet evolved and the info could easily be gotten elsewhere if someone cared about it. My original internet service provider eventually closed, and the transition to my new internet provider - Comcast - wasn't perfect. Eventually Comcast shut down their personal website functions, and that was the permanent end to much of my personal contribution to the Internet.
I still thought it was useful at the time, and had some different features you probably wouldn't find elsewhere, but what I think was useful probably wasn't to most other people.
State DOTs have gotten better with providing info on the web, and the Wikis of the web have the same stuff. Of course, nothing is perfect, especially when someone updating a Wiki is oblivious to changes being made to the route and insists what they write is right.
For some states (like Hawaii), the DOT website has only limited information, and Wikipedia seems to rely on existing route logs. And GMSV is out of date or incomplete, due to the logistical problems of getting a camera car out to remote locations.
Hobbyist route logs can provide lots of historical information beyond what the DOTs provide.
Definitely not, some states don't even have a full set of Wikipedia pages. I use Steve Riner's site for New Mexico Highways to this day.
Quote from: bandit957 on November 19, 2018, 11:37:23 AM
Or do they just plain old bip?
Quote from: bandit957 on November 19, 2018, 11:37:23 AM
all the incisive commentary I've added to the log
I think you just answered your own question.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 19, 2018, 12:32:28 PM
I have given a lot of thought about turning my WV page over to anyone who might want to take it over -- or at least taking the links to it down but leaving it as a "hidden" feature.
Feel free to link to my West Virginia hwys page...I will get to the US routes and Interstates eventually...
http://www.vahighways.com/wvannex/route-log/index.htm
I second the idea that hobbyist sites do more with historical stuff than DOTs or wikipedia pages...
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 19, 2018, 08:08:03 PM
I second the idea that hobbyist sites do more with historical stuff than DOTs or wikipedia pages...
Having done my Iowa Highways site for 20 years now, I've found that the historical material that the Iowa DOT has posted in recent years (legal route descriptions, archives of construction plans, and every highway map ever published) has helped fill gaps in my route log. Also, newspapers.com and similar archives have replaced multiple trips to multiple libraries that required hours of rolling through microfilm and hoping the library in question had a newspaper index.
Wikipedia route logs have to be sourced to either a state-published log (e.g. WSDOT's (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/roadway/statehighwaylog.htm)) or with Google Maps and a bit of guesswork. There's a lot of pages that need to be created/written, but nowadays most of the hard work is trying to write up histories for highways.
Unrelated, but a highway is actually on the front page of Wikipedia right now.
(https://i.imgur.com/Do19uT5.png)
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2018, 09:30:11 PMGoogle Maps and a bit of guesswork.
Original Research klaxon!!!
Not quite sure what is meant by route logs, but I provide extensive information on California highways at www.cahighways.org, drawn from a variety of sources throughout Caltrans and the CTC, as well as news articles. I haven't yet seen the wikis do that (without referencing my pages). I do know that my pages are actually cited and used as reference for historical information by Caltrans and other state agencies.
In short: if you do your pages right, they aren't obsolete.
Quote from: cahwyguy on November 29, 2018, 12:42:45 PM
Not quite sure what is meant by route logs, but I provide extensive information on California highways at www.cahighways.org, drawn from a variety of sources throughout Caltrans and the CTC, as well as news articles. I haven't yet seen the wikis do that (without referencing my pages). I do know that my pages are actually cited and used as reference for historical information by Caltrans and other state agencies.
In short: if you do your pages right, they aren't obsolete.
The tricky thing is that the majority of pages haven't kept up with the times like CAhighways has. Your page has a ton of legislative research and actual route maps. Most log websites generally just list the highways, the terminus points, and not much else.
Quote from: english si on November 29, 2018, 04:08:20 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2018, 09:30:11 PMGoogle Maps and a bit of guesswork.
Original Research klaxon!!!
I guess it falls into the gray area of Verifiability, though.
From Wikipedia:No_original_research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research):
QuoteThis includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
If your work and research is published and had some sort of third-party review, then Wikipedia is okay with experts in their field doing their own OR. But I suppose the pillars of "be bold", "assume good faith", and "don't be a
noodge" if the claims are not outstanding in their own right. Exit numbers and route lengths aren't as important as attributing questionable statements to living statesmen and the history of indigenous people being slaughtered by nail clippers.
Though I suppose everyone's interpretation of those kinds of things depends on which Wikipedian is going to play hero and which one wants to be a goat over an exit number.
I think I've figured out how to use the shapefiles to automate my route log in a way that's usable. But I still need to add some details in separate paragraphs.
Quote from: formulanone on November 29, 2018, 05:00:41 PMThough I suppose everyone's interpretation of those kinds of things depends on which Wikipedian is going to play hero and which one wants to be a goat over an exit number.
I'd be the goat (Greatest Of All Time) and be perfectly happy with it.
However, the number of vocal editors playing hero (pretending to do good, when really just being childish - like a toddler wearing a cape) meant the British roadgeeks with the knowledge and drive to do the research on roads stay well away from editing Wikipedia - not least because their own websites (that others were using as sources) were treated as unreliable sources (despite them having everything sourced on publicly accessible pages - just that they don't litter their hobbyist sites with citations).
As well as closing down people doing research (like finding a road number on a sign at a worksite) and the refusal to see hobbyist sites as serious (the UK's Department of Transport would redirect you to SABRE if you asked them for a list of highways, but it's not good enough for wikipedia), there's notability - even relatively important roads are seen as unimportant on wikipedia (I'm currently reading a talk page about deleting an article on an international Asian Highway that was meant to be a good couple of hundred km long in the mostly densely populated part of the world, and most people on it are saying 'delete' because its not notable enough, rather than delete because it was made up by the original editor. One editor had the decency to vote "merge" into a list article with other 3-digit Asian Highways as such a road was notable enough for
that. But none of them cared about the fact it was a total fiction of one guy - the issue was notability. Oh, and this was from earlier this year, rather than 10+ years ago when the fights for state highways having their articles was going on). In the UK, the compromise (not really a consensus) emerged that a 4-digit A road or a B road had to be really special to be considered notable enough for more than a couple of sentences.
As such, the Brits went and made their own wiki for roads where we could have this (https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=A87/Loch_Loyne) about a totally 'unnotable' former routing of a main road. Loads of original research to boot. Or this (https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=C1154_(Highland)) about a C road in the middle of nowhere.
Has anyone ever tried to start a similar wiki for American/North American roads?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 09, 2018, 09:49:44 AM
Has anyone ever tried to start a similar wiki for American/North American roads?
Wikipedia is already comprehensive enough.
Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2018, 10:07:22 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 09, 2018, 09:49:44 AM
Has anyone ever tried to start a similar wiki for American/North American roads?
Wikipedia is already comprehensive enough.
For you, maybe. Sure, it doesn't exist anymore, but there should be an article devoted to my avatar. Right now, all it gets is a few sentences in a list article. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_state_highways_serving_state_institutions#293)
Quote from: formulanone on November 29, 2018, 05:00:41 PM
Quote from: english si on November 29, 2018, 04:08:20 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2018, 09:30:11 PMGoogle Maps and a bit of guesswork.
Original Research klaxon!!!
I guess it falls into the gray area of Verifiability, though.
From Wikipedia:No_original_research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research):
QuoteThis includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
If your work and research is published and had some sort of third-party review, then Wikipedia is okay with experts in their field doing their own OR. But I suppose the pillars of "be bold", "assume good faith", and "don't be a noodge" if the claims are not outstanding in their own right. Exit numbers and route lengths aren't as important as attributing questionable statements to living statesmen and the history of indigenous people being slaughtered by nail clippers.
Though I suppose everyone's interpretation of those kinds of things depends on which Wikipedian is going to play hero and which one wants to be a goat over an exit number.
Original research from experts is definitely not allowed and could also fall in the bounds of the NPOV/COI rules, which are part of the main pillars of the site.
Quote from: english si on December 09, 2018, 08:53:14 AM
Quote from: formulanone on November 29, 2018, 05:00:41 PMThough I suppose everyone's interpretation of those kinds of things depends on which Wikipedian is going to play hero and which one wants to be a goat over an exit number.
I'd be the goat (Greatest Of All Time) and be perfectly happy with it.
However, the number of vocal editors playing hero (pretending to do good, when really just being childish - like a toddler wearing a cape) meant the British roadgeeks with the knowledge and drive to do the research on roads stay well away from editing Wikipedia - not least because their own websites (that others were using as sources) were treated as unreliable sources (despite them having everything sourced on publicly accessible pages - just that they don't litter their hobbyist sites with citations).
As well as closing down people doing research (like finding a road number on a sign at a worksite) and the refusal to see hobbyist sites as serious (the UK's Department of Transport would redirect you to SABRE if you asked them for a list of highways, but it's not good enough for wikipedia), there's notability - even relatively important roads are seen as unimportant on wikipedia (I'm currently reading a talk page about deleting an article on an international Asian Highway that was meant to be a good couple of hundred km long in the mostly densely populated part of the world, and most people on it are saying 'delete' because its not notable enough, rather than delete because it was made up by the original editor. One editor had the decency to vote "merge" into a list article with other 3-digit Asian Highways as such a road was notable enough for that. But none of them cared about the fact it was a total fiction of one guy - the issue was notability. Oh, and this was from earlier this year, rather than 10+ years ago when the fights for state highways having their articles was going on). In the UK, the compromise (not really a consensus) emerged that a 4-digit A road or a B road had to be really special to be considered notable enough for more than a couple of sentences.
As such, the Brits went and made their own wiki for roads where we could have this (https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=A87/Loch_Loyne) about a totally 'unnotable' former routing of a main road. Loads of original research to boot. Or this (https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=C1154_(Highland)) about a C road in the middle of nowhere.
Yeah...citing another wiki or your own fansite is a big no-no. It's obvious that one should not refer to their own material and just directly cite the relevant databases and established secondary sources to avoid any kind of misjudgement of the content. And doing in-person research is great and all, but Wikipedia is not meant for that kind of work...it's an encyclopedia that feeds off existing information collated from existing sources. If it isn't citeable, then it can just be tossed out.
For example, I would not cite my transit blog articles when writing about transit on Wikipedia, instead using a newspaper's report of the same situation/incident/content.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 09, 2018, 10:27:22 AM
For you, maybe. Sure, it doesn't exist anymore, but there should be an article devoted to my avatar. Right now, all it gets is a few sentences in a list article. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_state_highways_serving_state_institutions#293)
If there's enough cited material, it can be spun off into its own article.
Quote from: Bruce on December 09, 2018, 03:24:58 PMYeah...citing another wiki or your own fansite is a big no-no. It's obvious that one should not refer to their own material and just directly cite the relevant databases and established secondary sources to avoid any kind of misjudgement of the content.
Certainly - but that wasn't the problem - it wasn't them editing it to reference their work, it was others referencing it and then their work getting flagged as unreliable just because they didn't write it as an academic paper, but as something for hobbyists to enjoy.
When others cite your fansite and it gets turned down by Wikipedia Vogons, despite being an established secondary source, just because it is aimed at the hobbyist, rather than the scholar (and so the citations of primary sources are somewhat buried) - why bother with Wikipedia, when it doesn't like you personally and often views what you passionately researched as not noteworthy enough to bother them with?
And when the officials are using your relevant database as its more-accurate than the official one that they don't bother maintaining anymore (not that they put much effort into it before) and wasn't public-domain*...
UK Roadgeeks realised that Wikipedia was, at best, a not very productive area to spend their time roadgeeking. The US is a bit different as they got enough clout to do stuff, and decent public primary sources to back them up. However, it is still lacking. Dutch Wikipedia is one of the best on roads, but wegenwiki.nl still exists for that extra layer of detail.
*Seriously, what could you do? If you cited "DfT Roads List", then that's original research off a non-published primary source, that can't easily be verified, and the Vogons would throw it straight back at you. Especially as you get stuff like "B222 - London", which is useless as a listing. Maps have it, I guess, but they err (sometimes deliberately) and there's certain roads they don't get.
FINISHED IT! After 31 years!
http://bunkerblast.info/roads
Quote from: english si on December 09, 2018, 04:01:04 PMUK Roadgeeks realised that Wikipedia was, at best, a not very productive area to spend their time roadgeeking. The US is a bit different as they got enough clout to do stuff, and decent public primary sources to back them up. However, it is still lacking. Dutch Wikipedia is one of the best on roads, but wegenwiki.nl still exists for that extra layer of detail.
The Dutch Wikipedia has a very large amount of articles, but their depth is very minimal, many articles consists of only an infobox and one or two lines of text, often not substantially updated for years. The Dutch Wikipedia was in a battle with the Swedish Wikipedia to see who could produce the most articles. Many topics (also non-road related) are very poorly written, even major geographic articles (states, provinces, regions, cities) are often extremely limited in scope, not much beyond some trivia and stats.
Media coverage of roads is often prone to errors, lack of context and nuances and not rarely outright nonsense. I would not consider the media to be a very reliable source for road topics, unless it's an opening celebration or something.
Speaking of reliable sources, Google Maps is also prone to errors in many European countries. Apart from the whole color scheme fiasco, road numbers tend to appear or disappear, sometimes national road numbers are discarded in favor of E-numbers which nobody uses. This is a constantly evolving issue, with problems being fixed and new ones appear for no reason. Google Maps is also known to use little-used or archaic exonyms. The Dutch Google Maps was particularly bad, assigning German names for towns and cities across Eastern Europe. We even got people believing 'Laibach' was the capital of Slovenia. It's the older German exonym for Ljubljana, never used as such in Dutch. Google Maps can create its own reality because it is so dominant.
Quote from: Chris on December 10, 2018, 01:20:22 PMThe Dutch Wikipedia has a very large amount of articles, but their depth is very minimal, many articles consists of only an infobox and one or two lines of text, often not substantially updated for years.
Still one of the best - which shows the problem...
Quoteoften extremely limited in scope, not much beyond some trivia and stats.
Indeed, but that's Wikipedia's scope and depth there is normally outside of it.
Wegenwiki is an excellent resource (except for on the roads on the island group a couple of hundred km west of the Netherlands, which haven't seen as much love and care as elsewhere) because it not only allows more, but you (and others) go and do the research through the scant sources (and if I didn't agree, I'd defer to your knowledge as no one else looks at road sources from all over the world like you do) and write what is good stuff (which then I read slightly garbled through google translate).
Quote from: english si on December 09, 2018, 08:53:14 AM
Quote from: formulanone on November 29, 2018, 05:00:41 PMThough I suppose everyone's interpretation of those kinds of things depends on which Wikipedian is going to play hero and which one wants to be a goat over an exit number.
I'd be the goat (Greatest Of All Time) and be perfectly happy with it.
The meaning for goat, meaning someone who's not the hero, but...
QuoteWikipedia Vogons
...I have to borrow this phrase at least once in my life.
Quote
*Seriously, what could you do? If you cited "DfT Roads List", then that's original research off a non-published primary source, that can't easily be verified, and the Vogons would throw it straight back at you.
Doesn't every source have at least some link to a publisher? Or some public (or semi-public) record? If we're talking about something legislatively-created, then there should always be a source.
My understanding is that as long as a valid source is presented, then it sticks. Wouldn't someone have to find the source to challenge it, or prove it doesn't exist? But I suppose it's also tricky to prove something doesn't exist without any subsequent proof.
Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? If it doesn't look like a lie, smell like a lie, and lay like a lie...then it probably isn't; we're talking about roads. At worst, it's probably an assumption (humans to this a metric shit-ton), and at best, a typo that goes unnoticed for years. I don't think the same steadfastness to exacting principles apply equally to all aspects of the 'pedia.
Quote from: formulanone on December 10, 2018, 05:19:29 PMIf we're talking about something legislatively-created, then there should always be a source.
But we're not taking about something legislative-created.
Which is one problem with Wikipedia - because other places define road numbers in legislation, some of the Vogons want legislation or similar cited or it wasn't sufficient. "Assume good faith" just didn't exist, and those (like me) who were only there to do stuff related about my hobby, rather than have wikipedia as a hobby, didn't want to trapse through Wikipedia policy pages and find out the jargon to repeal these people who saw wikipedia bureaucracy as fun. They made wikipedia unfun, and they sure weren't going to make the hobby unfun, so walking away to preserve it was useful.
The DfT Road List is literally a spreadsheet that compiled an administrative card index in the Department of Transport building. We only know about it, because it got emailed to someone on SABRE who then attached it to a post in a hidden part of the forum, and, as I was getting rid of an Old PC and found the .xls file on there, I transposed it to a SABRE Wiki Sandbox page about 5 years later (which wouldn't have happened if Wikipedia didn't suck, because the SABRE Wiki wouldn't have existed, and the data contained isn't of much use to Wikipedia*). There's no publisher, no nothing.
*All the fun stuff in there wouldn't have been notable enough. Wikipedia wouldn't get excited about possible renumberings of short bits of motorway if a scheme from the 70s got built, or A roads we didn't know about previously that all we know from the DfT Roads List is the local authority who requested a number or town where it was - sometimes we've worked out where using original research and inference from secondary sources, but others we still have no clue as the original source isn't helpful beyond saying "this number was allocated to / reserved for a road here".
The French also have a very extensive off-Wikipedia wiki about roads: http://routes.wikia.com/wiki/Accueil
Quote from: english si on December 11, 2018, 04:36:07 AM"Assume good faith" just didn't exist, and those (like me) who were only there to do stuff related about my hobby, rather than have wikipedia as a hobby, didn't want to trapse through Wikipedia policy pages and find out the jargon to repeal these people who saw wikipedia bureaucracy as fun. They made wikipedia unfun, and they sure weren't going to make the hobby unfun, so walking away to preserve it was useful.
I can see why working with Wikipedia can be like that. There's a lot of overlapping policy, and the tendency to codify everything for "professional appearance" reasons makes it a helpful resource but a clumsy ideal to work with. But there's that haunting problem that we'd possibly have a similar problems if we created our own roads wiki. There would be a few users (or unregistered users) that would cross the line, and then there would be harder rules/guidelines, and I fear we'd be no different. Or too sporadic in number for adequate coverage. On the other hand, I know there's lots of people who overlap these boards with The Wiki, and from what I hear, there's occasional disagreements with Open Street Map users.
Then again, I tend to only add my photos - especially in articles where there are none - which keeps me out of the bureaucracy loop. Nobody seems to question that, and that's how I like it. Ironically, the one time I fell "afoul" of staff was when someone used a mis-attribution in AARoads' Shield Gallery to back up their point.