Over the weekend, I ground out a 9800-byte Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_65_in_Minnesota). This is the first non-stub road-related article I have written. By the end, I had completely lost my mind over the amount of detail I had put into an article about a 15-mile stretch of road. How do the people who write featured articles quadruple the length of this one do it? :-D
Nice work.
I tend to break up everything into bite-sized chunks that can be accomplished in a short amount of time, and try to push off momentum to get things done. Of course this backfires when I leave things on the backburner to go pursue another goal.
I've been focusing hard on freeways as of late, and it's led to some great progress. Interstate 182 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_182) is at 18K characters, while Interstate 205 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_205_(Oregon%E2%80%93Washington)) got up to 37K. I find it's harder to constrain myself to writing in summary style, which made Interstate 90's national overview (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_90) a fun change of pace.
That's a pretty good article, probably good enough to garner B-class rating if you put some references in the first paragraph of the route description. (For anyone not familiar with Wikipedia assessment ratings, B-class is actually very good–it's the highest you can get without going through one of the more intense review processes to achieve Good Article, A-class, or Featured Article assessments, and I've always felt like to do the most good for the project in the least amount of time, it makes the most sense to shoot for B-Class.)
With all three of the featured articles I've written (Kansas Turnpike, Chickasaw Turnpike, and Creek Turnpike), the intent was to write a featured article from the very start. (I find it's easier to do this with a stub article than a lengthier one which may have a lot of unsourceable cruft in it that may need to be done.) In the most recent effort, Creek Turnpike, I actually had gathered the sources well ahead of time and sat on them for a few years until I finally had the motivation to write the article. Then, I took the interesting nuggets of information out of them and made them into a bulleted list, with a fully-formed reference on each bullet point (you can see this in this old diff from my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scott5114/SandboxB&oldid=227715573)). From there, it was just a matter of expanding those bullet points out and connecting them into something resembling prose. That process started in March 2013 and the article cleared FA in May 2013.
Good article, but it kind of makes me wonder why you just don't do your own page? I used to do page updates on Wikipedia in my very late teens and early 20s. I kind of found a adhering to the Wikipedia format structure restricting and it got kind bland for my tastes after awhile. I kind of dig being able to go all in crazy detailed as I want and not really worrying about adhering to someone else's format.
I guess that's a question I don't think that I've ever been to pose before. I know a lot of the forum users update Wikipedia rather than do their own pages? Any particular rationale behind why you do it? I suppose it's far more likely Wikipedia will be around for a long time as opposed to something like a personal site (as an example I can think of).
Some of the benefits of editing Wikipedia as opposed to doing a custom site are:
- Guaranteed traffic. Your article is going up onto one of the largest websites in the world. It will be seen by more than the random roadgeek that hears about your site from an AARoads thread.
- Don't have to worry about setting up your own server, search engine optimization, paying for hosting/domain name.
- The Wikipedia brand name is (rightly or wrongly) seen as authoritative. The site is often the first reference source people check. If it's just something to settle a bar bet or for their own personal amusement (i.e. not something mission-critical to get right), it may be the last source they check.
- There are other roadgeeks there that will sometimes pitch in and help to improve your articles.
- There are bots and other automated tools that stay on top of things like checking for dead links.
- Wikipedia is basically guaranteed to be around in some form or fashion until the end of the universe at this point. It's like a cockroach. Because of its free license, it's been copied and copied and copied. There are so many copies of Wikipedia around that even if the original site got nuked, all of the content will still be available many times over.
Drawbacks of Wikipedia:
- The house style (Neutral Point of View) is indeed very bland and gets boring to write after a while. You can't come within sneezing distance of anything resembling an opinion. I sort of slowed down on editing Wikipedia because I started to feel like my writing skills were going downhill from not being allowed to describe a scenic route as beautiful or say an interchange sucked.
- Some people may chafe at following USRD standards and the site Manual of Style.
- There's hundreds of policies you need to know and remember, most of them identified in casual conversation as inscrutable acronyms. Better be familiar with RS and GNG, lest your article be declared NN and brought to AFD.
- There are the inevitable non-roadgeeks that will waltz in and cause problems because they think they know shit but they don't.
- There are some editors with really big personalities who know a lot about their subject matter (which may even be roads) but are a pain in the ass to have to deal with. You may spend more time arguing the finest points of wikidrama with someone rather than actually writing content.
Another benefit is access to resources beyond those available at a local library. Between the Wikipedia Library (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library) and Resource Request (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request) forum, I've been able to get my hands on a lot more material to work with.
Nice work! I've been wanting to get U.S. Route 281 in Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_281_in_Texas) to GA status for... well, a while (at least 5 years, according to my user page, where it's still listed as a "current goal"), but just haven't gotten around to it. When I'm not doing vandalism cleanup or other such janitorial work, I tend to find a random route's article and make some improvement, even if it is standardizing the infobox or fixing some awkward grammar. Every bit helps, I think.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 31, 2022, 04:07:42 PM
- There are the inevitable non-roadgeeks that will waltz in and cause problems because they think they know shit but they don't.
I agree, for example on the I-575 article I had found a paragraph where someone was asserting that I-575 and I-985 were both built for the purpose of enabling suburban sprawl, so I added a "citation needed" tag (most Georgia roadgeeks know that Gainesville was a developed city before the Interstates and I-985 was meant to connect to it rather than simply enable sprawl) Then some non-roadgeek (not even from the USA) removes the tag because they think that highways being built for sprawl is one of those obvious things that don't need citation.
As for "wikidrama", some editors assume that anyone who doesn't create content is automatically there to engage in wikidrama. Never mind that there are valid edits that don't consist of creating content (such as adding maintenance tags) and the reason I don't want to create content for Wikipedia is that I want to maintain copyright over the content and not have to release it per the GFDL and whatever else WP uses.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 01, 2022, 01:11:28 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 31, 2022, 04:07:42 PM
- There are the inevitable non-roadgeeks that will waltz in and cause problems because they think they know shit but they don't.
...built for the purpose of enabling suburban sprawl, so I added a "citation needed" tag (most Georgia roadgeeks know that Gainesville was a developed city before the Interstates and I-985 was meant to connect to it rather than simply enable sprawl)
...Then some non-roadgeek (not even from the USA) removes the tag because they think that highways being built for sprawl is one of those obvious things that don't need citation.
Isn't declaring a road "something that creates urban sprawl" showing a bias, something WP frowns upon?
I guess you get around that by adding something one-sided in the
Criticism or
Critical Reception section of any given article.
I do some ninja fixing if I find typos, wrong links, etc; most recently to the list of postal codes in Germany to correct two links that were going to French towns instead (EDIT: the article has since been deleted). I'm considering creating an account in order to hide my IP, but that changes from time to time.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 01, 2022, 09:55:08 AM
I do some ninja fixing if I find typos, wrong links, etc; most recently to the list of postal codes in Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_postal_codes_in_Germany) to correct two links that were going to French towns instead. I'm considering creating an account in order to hide my IP, but that changes from time to time.
In the near future, they are planning to establish some other way of identifying anonymous editors other than by IP. Still, having an account has benefits, like being able to look up your own contribution history (useful when you want to see how you did something on a similar page but can't remember which one it was), maintaining a watchlist, and being able to easily receive messages from other users when they have a question about one of your edits. Editors also tend to give anonymous edits more scrutiny, since they're the most likely to contain vandalism or clueless edits, so in a way having an account can be more anonymous than being an anonymous editor.
I mostly just fix grammatical or obvious errors like CNGL-Leudimin. I find Wikipedia drama annoying, but I have written a few articles and built a few tables. To get rid of opinion, I've had better luck using the Talk page. Highlighting the opinion and why it's an opinion in the Talk page allows you to explain the problem rather than just pointing out a problem that others may not recognize by highlighting a section as "Citation needed." The Talk page is your friend.
I know some may not like being limited in what they can write according to Wikipedia standards but there are ways around it. The easiest is to just cite an article stating (for example) how CA 1 is considered one of the world's most scenic highways. The trick with Wikipedia is just accepting it requires verifiable references for everything. This used to be true in academics too, but that ship has long since sailed.
I got frustrated with the aggressive page monitoring. I made what I considered to be worthwhile edits that were reverted in all of five minutes. Bye.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 05, 2022, 01:45:44 PM
I got frustrated with the aggressive page monitoring. I made what I considered to be worthwhile edits that were reverted in all of five minutes. Bye.
The problem is that just because an edit is worthwhile on its face, doesn't mean it complies with policy, doesn't duplicate other writing elsewhere in the article, is appropriate for an encyclopedia, is adequately sourced (considered a much more major problem if the entire rest of the article is properly sourced) etc. Without a diff, I can't say for sure what happened, but my guess is you tripped over one of those concerns.
Pretty much every Wikipedia editor has had an edit or even, in my case, an entire article, rejected early in their career. The editors who stick around are those who take the time to figure out what they did wrong and make future edits comply with the expectations of the community.
Quote from: skluth on February 05, 2022, 01:35:15 PM
To get rid of opinion, I've had better luck using the Talk page. Highlighting the opinion and why it's an opinion in the Talk page allows you to explain the problem rather than just pointing out a problem that others may not recognize by highlighting a section as "Citation needed." The Talk page is your friend.
But tagging isn't really comparable to talk page discussion, discussion is a deliberate process that usually only affects the one article, while on the other hand, if I'm seeing similar problems repeatedly across various articles, it makes more sense to tag all of them. And the onus is on the person wanting to include content to justify why it complies, rather than the person wanting to remove content to justify how it is noncompliant. And I'm speaking from a general perspective, as on Wikipedia I have edited more than just road articles.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 05, 2022, 07:06:07 PM
Quote from: skluth on February 05, 2022, 01:35:15 PM
To get rid of opinion, I've had better luck using the Talk page. Highlighting the opinion and why it's an opinion in the Talk page allows you to explain the problem rather than just pointing out a problem that others may not recognize by highlighting a section as "Citation needed." The Talk page is your friend.
But tagging isn't really comparable to talk page discussion, discussion is a deliberate process that usually only affects the one article, while on the other hand, if I'm seeing similar problems repeatedly across various articles, it makes more sense to tag all of them. And the onus is on the person wanting to include content to justify why it complies, rather than the person wanting to remove content to justify how it is noncompliant. And I'm speaking from a general perspective, as on Wikipedia I have edited more than just road articles.
I was going by your specific example of "enabling suburban sprawl" where someone else removed the tag without justification. That's also a great example why I don't do much editing. BTW, a quick check shows "sprawl" is no longer on either page. I noticed somebody even added this wonderful line to one page: "All of I-985 is included as part of the National Highway System, a system of roadways important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility." Smart way to stop a lot of opinion slipping onto the page.
Quote from: ran4sh on February 05, 2022, 07:06:07 PM
And the onus is on the person wanting to include content to justify why it complies, rather than the person wanting to remove content to justify how it is noncompliant. And I'm speaking from a general perspective, as on Wikipedia I have edited more than just road articles.
I think the responsibility should usually come from the one making the assertion. The more ridiculous the claim, the more it should be supported by those making the claim in the first place. I suppose some of that is to weed out Non-Notable articles, but some of it really looks like sniping after a while.
As Scott says, you really wind up grinding out a lot of statements which start to sound alike after a while, due to the tone of neutrality kept in the process.
I think it is constructive to look at it from the point of view of a regular article maintainer. Suppose you have been working on improving an article for a long time, perhaps with an eye to getting it to featured article status and getting it on the Main Page. You have worked on the article for weeks, and spent many hours researching, adding references, and copyediting it.
Randomly, a user you don't recognize adds a few sentences to the article. They don't flow well with the rest of the prose, they introduce new subject matter that you have never seen in your hours researching the topic, and the specific aspect of the topic they address focuses on a detailed aspect of the topic that is not really necessary for a general understanding of it. They, of course, provide no references for their claim. The editor's contribution history provides no indication that they have any particular expertise on the topic of your article, or even an established interest in it.
Do you keep that addition in the article, perhaps with a big glaring "citation needed" flag that will bar your article from reaching featured article status before it gets cleared? Do you reach out to the person who added it, asking them for a source which may or may not be forthcoming? Or do you quietly revert the addition out "rv unsourced", hoping that the person who added it will have moved on to something else and not even notice their addition was stripped away?
I agree with most of what y'all have said. The specific I-575 article problem I was referencing was about a non-road editor reverting my edit because I tagged requesting citation that I-985 was built for similar reasons. The responsibility should have been on the editor that added that claim, but I was the one that got reverted.
Sometimes the Wikipedia shows errors.
I-85 was relocated onto a new six-lane freeway NOT widened.
QuoteAs of 1984, I-85 was relocated and widened to six lanes starting several miles north of the Yadkin River. Plans were made for widening to eight lanes around Salisbury.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 25, 2022, 11:30:30 PM
Sometimes the Wikipedia shows errors.
I-85 was relocated onto a new six-lane freeway NOT widened.
QuoteAs of 1984, I-85 was relocated and widened to six lanes starting several miles north of the Yadkin River. Plans were made for widening to eight lanes around Salisbury.
That Wikipedia statement is nearly correct. The I-85 bridge over the Yadkin River at East Spencer was relocated further downstream away from the cluster of old bridges for US-70/US-29/NC-150 and the NCRR/Norfolk Southern mainline. I highly suspect that the main reason for relocation was to simplify the coordination with the railroad, but the new alignment does pull in the curve and shorten the Interstate route quite a bit.
It's important to remember that many well-meaning Wikipedia editors are just bad writers who have never documented anything in their lives.
Also important: Wikipedia only reflects what is reported in reliable sources. So if a newspaper gets a detail wrong, it's likely to be carried into the article until a proper, corrected source is found. If a statement is uncited, then it was likely added by a passerby and can be corrected by anyone with a proper source.
Nothing is more frustrating as a Wikipedia editor than knowing without a doubt that something is true, but being unable to find a source that says as much, often because the editors of the sources consider it to be obvious or uninteresting enough it doesn't need to be mentioned.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 26, 2022, 04:07:03 PM
Nothing is more frustrating as a Wikipedia editor than knowing without a doubt that something is true, but being unable to find a source that says as much, often because the editors of the sources consider it to be obvious or uninteresting enough it doesn't need to be mentioned.
I'm currently stuck on a few research projects for this very reason. A good deal of coverage for a major construction project before it happens and while it's underway, but nothing turns up when it's actually finished.
Quote from: Bruce on February 26, 2022, 06:04:33 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 26, 2022, 04:07:03 PM
Nothing is more frustrating as a Wikipedia editor than knowing without a doubt that something is true, but being unable to find a source that says as much, often because the editors of the sources consider it to be obvious or uninteresting enough it doesn't need to be mentioned.
I'm currently stuck on a few research projects for this very reason. A good deal of coverage for a major construction project before it happens and while it's underway, but nothing turns up when it's actually finished.
I ran into that exact problem on Creek Turnpike. News article stating that one of the extensions was scheduled to open on a certain date, then...no coverage confirming it actually opened according to schedule.
Quote from: Bruce on February 26, 2022, 02:57:00 PM
Also important: Wikipedia only reflects what is reported in reliable sources. So if a newspaper gets a detail wrong, it's likely to be carried into the article until a proper, corrected source is found. If a statement is uncited, then it was likely added by a passerby and can be corrected by anyone with a proper source.
Uncited statements can also be removed (a lot of them remain from when Wikipedia was more focused on growth and are less appropriate now that Wikipedia is more focused on accuracy), but as an editor I would often get reverted if I tried to do that, which is part of why I don't really edit WP anymore.
A lot of times the odds of what getting reverted are dictated by how well your edit summary signifies your intent. If you just remove content with no edit summary, people are much more likely to revert, suspecting vandalism, than if you put "rm uncited" or such in the edit summary. It also kind of depends on how well-sourced the rest of the article is; deleting an uncited statement from an article that already has 100 citations is much more likely to be accepted than deleting one from an article that has whole uncited paragraphs (as the latter looks like cherry-picking).
Well, in the case of the latter, I often would delete those entire uncited paragraphs (or even entire uncited sections).
Quote from: ran4sh on February 27, 2022, 12:40:56 AM
Well, in the case of the latter, I often would delete those entire uncited paragraphs (or even entire uncited sections).
Found your problem. Usually wholesale deletions of an uncited sentence or two are okay. If you're throwing away vast swaths of content like that, though, you usually need to have airtight proof that it's actually false, violates some other policy like NPOV, was added by an editor whose credibility resembles that of Vladimir Putin, etc. Merely being uncited usually doesn't justify it, and can even be construed as vandalism.
Generally, editors view large uncited blocks of text as acceptable until proven otherwise, but in need of further attention and polish; generally the preferred method of dealing with them is by cleaning them up and citing them rather than deleting them. A better approach is to slap a tag on the uncited content to draw attention to the fact that it is uncited; even if it remains that way for a long period of time, Wikipedians are fond of saying there is no deadline.
I've been editing a Dutch-language road wiki since 2007. It was set up due to frustration over the poor quality of Dutch Wikipedia and endless and pointless debates on talk pages about naming conventions, but no actual article improvements. Many subjects have a larger talk page than the article itself.
The Dutch Wikipedia is a joke, many readers don't even bother with the Dutch Wikipedia but start out on the English Wikipedia. Dutch Wikipedia went for quantity over quality, with a huge chunk of the content being mere stubs that are not maintained because the number of articles is far too big in relation to the number of active editors.
In my experience with editing for 15 years on the Dutch 'Wegenwiki' (Road's Wiki), maintaining accuracy over time is far more challenging than the initial write-up. How do you keep track of all those articles still being up to date on Wikipedia?
One thing I've noticed on the English Wikipedia about U.S. roads are the history sections. They are often mostly about route numbering changes, but contain little information about the physical changes to a road, when it was first built, what changes occurred over time, and in what context, etc. I think that may be more interesting for casual readers than all the route number changes, or too many intricate details in the route descriptions.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 26, 2022, 09:10:58 PM
A lot of times the odds of what getting reverted are dictated by how well your edit summary signifies your intent. If you just remove content with no edit summary, people are much more likely to revert, suspecting vandalism, than if you put "rm uncited" or such in the edit summary. It also kind of depends on how well-sourced the rest of the article is; deleting an uncited statement from an article that already has 100 citations is much more likely to be accepted than deleting one from an article that has whole uncited paragraphs (as the latter looks like cherry-picking).
A fair number of people will also use certain edit summaries that tend to suggest vandalism, stuff like "Added content" or "Added facts" or similar. Those edits tend to get reverted for similar reasons.
I probably spent more of my time removing things from Wikipedia than actually adding to them.
Quote from: Chris on March 02, 2022, 07:25:10 AM
One thing I've noticed on the English Wikipedia about U.S. roads are the history sections. They are often mostly about route numbering changes, but contain little information about the physical changes to a road, when it was first built, what changes occurred over time, and in what context, etc. I think that may be more interesting for casual readers than all the route number changes, or too many intricate details in the route descriptions.
Can't speak with confidence for other states, but in Oklahoma at least, that's because there usually isn't easily-accessible information about the date a road was physically built. A road could have been there since statehood as an anonymous unimportant dirt road that the state later took over and improved, or it could have been purpose-built by the state when they needed a highway there. In either case, the only information the state publishes is the date the designation was added and a line being added to the state map where there wasn't one before.
Newspapers often don't comment on the construction of ordinary roads, either. And finding information on minute details like passing lanes being added? Good luck. Most of the information that would be needed, if it was commented on, would be only noted in a small-town local paper that in many cases has gone out of business 50 years ago and isn't digitized and accessible online, if archives exist at all. Conducting that research would mean visiting libraries in dozens of small towns along what could be a hundred-mile stretch, looking for through microfiche for something which may or may not even exist or be useful.
It is much more straightforward and a better use of the time to write a summary of numbering changes, since that at least gives someone who is interested in conducting more fine-grained research a place to start. If you focus too much on smaller, harder to research details, you end up with three very good articles and a hundred stubs. I'd much rather have 103 decent articles that maybe don't focus so much on the finer details.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 02, 2022, 09:02:38 AM
I probably spent more of my time removing things from Wikipedia than actually adding to them.
I do too, but that's because I don't create content for free. I don't like having to release what I write under the GFDL etc where anyone can just copy it for free, so almost none of my Wikipedia edits consist of adding content to articles.
Quote from: ran4sh on March 02, 2022, 02:33:05 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 02, 2022, 09:02:38 AM
I probably spent more of my time removing things from Wikipedia than actually adding to them.
I do too, but that's because I don't create content for free. I don't like having to release what I write under the GFDL etc where anyone can just copy it for free, so almost none of my Wikipedia edits consist of adding content to articles.
Because what you write is so good it's worth paying for?
It may not be worth paying for now, but if it becomes worth paying for in the future it would be better for me to have the rights to it, which is not possible with Wikipedia's terms.
I should clarify that I do add content created by others, such as statistical information or information that can simply go in a table or infobox without having to write my own prose to go with it. So in that sense I do add content to articles, however most of my edits do things like reformatting, reorganizing sections, correct errors, etc
Hah. Not even the output of professional authors is considered worth for paying for anymore. Practically nobody can make a living solely off of writing, at least not as long-form prose. The only way to make any money writing is in marketing or PR. Even journalism is dying.
Clinging to copyright on written text only assures that your work will vanish the moment you stop being around to keep maintaining whatever medium it's stored on. If I die today, all of the copyrighted text on my website will last only as long as my host can keep charging my debit card, and my working copies and backups only as long as my wife desires to keep my old computer and the paper copies around. Meanwhile GFDL-licensed text will still be around when the cockroaches are all that's left of this planet, because it has been repeatedly backed up through legally-allowed copying.
Who says I want my work to outlive me? This isn't a political forum so I'm not going to elaborate, but I believe copyright protection should be much less than currently exists, and should definitely not outlive the author (The last surviving author, in case of works with multiple authors). Plus with limited copyright protection, content would enter the public domain much earlier and both free and originally non-free content can be repeatedly backed up through legally-allowed copying.
And I'm referring to all formats of copyrightable work, not just writing. Images, videos, etc included. I would never create an image or video and release it for free.
I create images and videos and release them for free all the time. If it's not something I'm going to make money off of (and I'm not a good enough photographer to labor under the illusion that I'm going to, and I don't have the patience to market myself as an artist-for-hire unless someone is actively waving money in my face)...what possible reason do I have to care if someone else uses it? Personally I think it's kind of neat that photos I've taken at roadmeets have ended up in things like news articles. If I had kept the copyright on it, nobody else would have ever seen or cared about my photo.
Quote from: Chris on March 02, 2022, 07:25:10 AM
How do you keep track of all those articles still being up to date on Wikipedia?
I check the WSDOT press releases and transportation tags for our major newspapers regularly and update as needed. Sometimes it might be months late, but it will eventually get updated.
Quote
One thing I've noticed on the English Wikipedia about U.S. roads are the history sections. They are often mostly about route numbering changes, but contain little information about the physical changes to a road, when it was first built, what changes occurred over time, and in what context, etc. I think that may be more interesting for casual readers than all the route number changes, or too many intricate details in the route descriptions.
As Scott said, it's harder to find such details without digging deep through small town papers. Luckily I've been able to manage with quite a few (see Interstate 182 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_182)), but even then, writing about when X section opened in Y for Z dollars gets repetitive after a while and some newspapers might not bother to cover the impacts of construction.
Quote from: ran4sh on March 02, 2022, 02:33:05 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 02, 2022, 09:02:38 AM
I probably spent more of my time removing things from Wikipedia than actually adding to them.
I do too, but that's because I don't create content for free. I don't like having to release what I write under the GFDL etc where anyone can just copy it for free, so almost none of my Wikipedia edits consist of adding content to articles.
I meant to say that I was an admin who probably deleted close to 20,000 things during my career.
Also, Wikipedia hasn't been under the GFDL in quite a while, they switched to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike in like 2009.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 02, 2022, 06:36:01 PM
If I had kept the copyright on it, nobody else would have ever seen or cared about my photo.
I feel like most of the images posted here on this forum are copyrighted and are not edited out. City-Data is very strict with that rule and you can get warned for it.
Lol, NDCOT North Department Carolina of Transportation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_85_Business_(North_Carolina)
Off topic but it's strange that I see I-85 business shields getting removed and not US-70 yet. but, who knows.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 07, 2022, 10:51:49 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 02, 2022, 06:36:01 PM
If I had kept the copyright on it, nobody else would have ever seen or cared about my photo.
I feel like most of the images posted here on this forum are copyrighted and are not edited out. City-Data is very strict with that rule and you can get warned for it.
That's not what I'm talking about. I've had photos of mine used in news reports because I open-licensed them. If I had just posted them here with the copyright still on them nobody would have seen them but a few dozen roadgeeks.
The two largest changes I have caused are the creation of the US Route 16 in South Dakota page (to expand on the historical route across the rest of the state) and the deletion of almost every page related to abandoned, unused, former, or unfinished highways. I gained access to the main list page after it was removed so I could sort each entry into its respective article but then I kinda just forgot about it after that.