Interstate 42 (E)

[Strider]

The whole NC 36 thing is one of the stupidest plans NCDOT has done of late. They are not renumbering all of NC 42, just a segment around I-42, which breaks NC 42 into two segments now.

Yet, nobody is confused with I-74/US 74 and I-73/NC 73 happening.

And also, there is no I-36 in NC or anywhere else in the nation, so if an Asheville-Charlotte-Wilmington route were to get that number, it wouldn't be too bad, as NC 36 is far enough away that it doesn't matter.

Asheville-Charlotte interstate will happen as they're proposing that now but no I-xx or I-xxx announced yet, but Asheville-Charlotte-Wilmington interstate? No it will not happen since toll road exists in Monroe and there is no proposed roads between there and I-485 since Garden Parkway is dead. And the proposed Wadesboro bypass is probably going to be a toll road as well.

NC does not put interstate number on their toll roads.

And yeah, NC-36 is ridiculous. Oh well.

[sprjus4]

I don't think we'll be seeing an interstate between I-26 and Wilmington (although there should be), but...

No it will not happen since toll road exists in Monroe and there is no proposed roads between there and I-485 since Garden Parkway is dead.

Any interstate would simply follow I-85 and I-485, so I don't see this as an issue, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

And the proposed Wadesboro bypass is probably going to be a toll road as well.

Is it? I hadn't heard this anywhere.

NC does not put interstate number on their toll roads.

True, but it's not like they can't. If the opportunity for a cross-state interstate along US-74 came up, I'm sure they'd find a way to make it work.

—

All hypotheticals, but just some food for thought.

[Mapmikey]

I agree that renumbering a portion of NC 42 to NC 36 is unnecessary. However, it looks like that is what is going to happen. Are there any other portions of state highways in North Carolina that exist in two or more segments that do not connect with one another? I know other states have non-continuous state highway segments, but I am not sure if North Carolina does as well.

NC 172 is functionally split into discontinuous segments

[cowboy_wilhelm]

And the proposed Wadesboro bypass is probably going to be a toll road as well.

Is it? I hadn't heard this anywhere.

It's not, at least for now.

[The Ghostbuster]

The Wadesboro should begin construction in 2030, toll road or non-toll road: https://www.yourdailyjournal.com/news/192845/state-transportation-leaders-give-update-on-projects-planned-for-anson-county.

[RoadPelican]

The Wadesboro should begin construction in 2030, toll road or non-toll road: https://www.yourdailyjournal.com/news/192845/state-transportation-leaders-give-update-on-projects-planned-for-anson-county.

In the latest draft of the NC STIP (2026-2034) the Wadesboro bypass is funded for preliminary engineering only.

[bob7374]

Here's a couple photos of the new NC 36 related signage on the Clayton Bypass. NC 36 West trailblazers have also appeared along now signed as US 70 in Clayton:

[The Ghostbuster]

Wikipedia and Google Maps have not been updated to show the renumbering of the segment of NC 42 to NC 36, nor does Google Maps show the new exit numbers corresponding with Interstate 42's mileage.

[WashuOtaku]

Wikipedia and Google Maps have not been updated to show the renumbering of the segment of NC 42 to NC 36, nor does Google Maps show the new exit numbers corresponding with Interstate 42's mileage.

The Wikipedia article for NC 42 has been updated to include NC 36 now. There isn't really much to say about it. Another editor worked on I-42, but I'm sure other routes that were also impacted by the NC 42/NC 36 change have yet to be updated.

[english si]

Stop thinking wikipedia is informative about roads and someone editing it makes things official!

Also stop wasting time editing articles that a cabal there think are 'unencyclopedic' because they think that encyclopedias (including wikipedia) should be able to fit on a bookshelf and so there definitely shouldn't be a page for individual state highways unless they are really famous (plus they don't treat primary sources like route logs - or even reading a map - as valid under 'original research' rules). If you are lucky it may survive, but editing draws attention to the article...

And Google Maps is probably worse for reliability. Very easy to get a change to happen, very hard to correct bad changes.

[ElishaGOtis]

On that note, if something in Waze or OSM is wrong please let me (or another editor in the area) know. 

[vdeane]

Also stop wasting time editing articles that a cabal there think are 'unencyclopedic' because they think that encyclopedias (including wikipedia) should be able to fit on a bookshelf and so there definitely shouldn't be a page for individual state highways unless they are really famous (plus they don't treat primary sources like route logs - or even reading a map - as valid under 'original research' rules). If you are lucky it may survive, but editing draws attention to the article...

Honestly, that might be a good thing, since it would help the AARoads Wiki become more prominent in search results.  Right now it's a crapshoot, and Wikipedia always comes first.

[PColumbus73]

I guess we could interpret NC 42 as having a hidden concurrency with I-40/42

[english si]

I guess we could interpret NC 42 as having a hidden concurrency with I-40/42

NC50 and US70, surely, if we don't want to hide it under NC36?

[rickmastfan67]

On that note, if something in Waze or OSM is wrong please let me (or another editor in the area) know. 

The exit numbers along I-42 are wrong in OSM based on the photos above. lol.

[Strider]

Also stop wasting time editing articles that a cabal there think are 'unencyclopedic' because they think that encyclopedias (including wikipedia) should be able to fit on a bookshelf and so there definitely shouldn't be a page for individual state highways unless they are really famous (plus they don't treat primary sources like route logs - or even reading a map - as valid under 'original research' rules). If you are lucky it may survive, but editing draws attention to the article...

Honestly, that might be a good thing, since it would help the AARoads Wiki become more prominent in search results.  Right now it's a crapshoot, and Wikipedia always comes first.

AARoads Wiki is similar to Wikipedia. There are still errors. If we want AARoads Wiki to be more prominent, then update them every time a new information come out when time allows, of course. (i.e. I-73's total mileage is now 107, not 101.1.)

[vdeane]

Also stop wasting time editing articles that a cabal there think are 'unencyclopedic' because they think that encyclopedias (including wikipedia) should be able to fit on a bookshelf and so there definitely shouldn't be a page for individual state highways unless they are really famous (plus they don't treat primary sources like route logs - or even reading a map - as valid under 'original research' rules). If you are lucky it may survive, but editing draws attention to the article...

Honestly, that might be a good thing, since it would help the AARoads Wiki become more prominent in search results.  Right now it's a crapshoot, and Wikipedia always comes first.

AARoads Wiki is similar to Wikipedia. There are still errors. If we want AARoads Wiki to be more prominent, then update them every time a new information come out when time allows, of course. (i.e. I-73's total mileage is now 107, not 101.1.)

All of this would be helped if the roadgeek community stopped treating Wikipedia as the primary.  The leaders of Wikipedia have spoken.  Why keep propping up a sinking ship?

[Strider]

Also stop wasting time editing articles that a cabal there think are 'unencyclopedic' because they think that encyclopedias (including wikipedia) should be able to fit on a bookshelf and so there definitely shouldn't be a page for individual state highways unless they are really famous (plus they don't treat primary sources like route logs - or even reading a map - as valid under 'original research' rules). If you are lucky it may survive, but editing draws attention to the article...

Honestly, that might be a good thing, since it would help the AARoads Wiki become more prominent in search results.  Right now it's a crapshoot, and Wikipedia always comes first.

AARoads Wiki is similar to Wikipedia. There are still errors. If we want AARoads Wiki to be more prominent, then update them every time a new information come out when time allows, of course. (i.e. I-73's total mileage is now 107, not 101.1.)

All of this would be helped if the roadgeek community stopped treating Wikipedia as the primary.  The leaders of Wikipedia have spoken.  Why keep propping up a sinking ship?

Because at the moment, both of them are the same thing. I have looked at both Wiki and AAroads Wiki and did not see anything that stands out in the AARoads Wiki (except the design which I like).

I don't blame the roadgeek community if they chose Wiki as the primary. You can't expect or force the community to adapt to one site if the information are the same from both sites.

[sprjus4]

Also stop wasting time editing articles that a cabal there think are 'unencyclopedic' because they think that encyclopedias (including wikipedia) should be able to fit on a bookshelf and so there definitely shouldn't be a page for individual state highways unless they are really famous (plus they don't treat primary sources like route logs - or even reading a map - as valid under 'original research' rules). If you are lucky it may survive, but editing draws attention to the article...

Honestly, that might be a good thing, since it would help the AARoads Wiki become more prominent in search results.  Right now it's a crapshoot, and Wikipedia always comes first.

AARoads Wiki is similar to Wikipedia. There are still errors. If we want AARoads Wiki to be more prominent, then update them every time a new information come out when time allows, of course. (i.e. I-73's total mileage is now 107, not 101.1.)

All of this would be helped if the roadgeek community stopped treating Wikipedia as the primary.  The leaders of Wikipedia have spoken.  Why keep propping up a sinking ship?

Because at the moment, both of them are the same thing. I have looked at both Wiki and AAroads Wiki and did not see anything that stands out in the AARoads Wiki (except the design which I like).

I don't blame the roadgeek community if they chose Wiki as the primary. You can't expect or force the community to adapt to one site if the information are the same from both sites.

Not to mention, when you Google a highway or route, Wikipedia comes up. Not this site.

[CanesFan27]

Also stop wasting time editing articles that a cabal there think are 'unencyclopedic' because they think that encyclopedias (including wikipedia) should be able to fit on a bookshelf and so there definitely shouldn't be a page for individual state highways unless they are really famous (plus they don't treat primary sources like route logs - or even reading a map - as valid under 'original research' rules). If you are lucky it may survive, but editing draws attention to the article...

Honestly, that might be a good thing, since it would help the AARoads Wiki become more prominent in search results.  Right now it's a crapshoot, and Wikipedia always comes first.

AARoads Wiki is similar to Wikipedia. There are still errors. If we want AARoads Wiki to be more prominent, then update them every time a new information come out when time allows, of course. (i.e. I-73's total mileage is now 107, not 101.1.)

All of this would be helped if the roadgeek community stopped treating Wikipedia as the primary.  The leaders of Wikipedia have spoken.  Why keep propping up a sinking ship?

Here's your problem - there is more than just people in this hobby that access Wikipedia.

Futher, the aaroads wiki, to me, is similar to a fandom wiki.  The hard core folks will go to it but regular folks aren't.

Also with all the issues this site has been having lately - it's hard to trust that the aaroads wiki will always be accessible.

Finally, there are plenty of hobby sites that aren't tied to Wikipedia or this site that you can get information from.  Wikipedia or aaroads is just one of many resources. 

[vdeane]

Looking at all these replies, I'm starting to think that the prevalence of people who feel the need to treat updates to Wikipedia like major news here aren't actually ignorant of the AARW and the reasons it exists, but are actually trying to sabotage the AARW due to a disagreement with the community editors who were on Wikipedia migrating there.

Because at the moment, both of them are the same thing. I have looked at both Wiki and AAroads Wiki and did not see anything that stands out in the AARoads Wiki (except the design which I like).

I don't blame the roadgeek community if they chose Wiki as the primary. You can't expect or force the community to adapt to one site if the information are the same from both sites.

Catch-22: you're propping up the sinking ship "because they're both the same", yet they'll continue to both be the same as long as you keep propping up the sinking ship.  The AARoads Wiki was forked off because the Wikipedia administration has become increasingly hostile to the roadgeek community, so the community editors decided to cut their losses and fork out the road articles.  We really should be supporting their decision, not fighting them.

Not to mention, when you Google a highway or route, Wikipedia comes up. Not this site.

That will continue to be the case as long as you keep supporting Wikipedia.  Wikipedia has a lot of clout and Google doesn't know about the edit wars.  You can help by not giving the Wikipedia links for road articles clicks in search results - click on an AARW link if there's one available, or manually construct the AARW URL from the Wikipedia one via right-clicking and selecting "copy link address".

Here's your problem - there is more than just people in this hobby that access Wikipedia.

Futher, the aaroads wiki, to me, is similar to a fandom wiki.  The hard core folks will go to it but regular folks aren't.

Also with all the issues this site has been having lately - it's hard to trust that the aaroads wiki will always be accessible.

Finally, there are plenty of hobby sites that aren't tied to Wikipedia or this site that you can get information from.  Wikipedia or aaroads is just one of many resources. 

That is why it's unfortunate the leaders of Wikipedia took the stance they did, but they did, so we make due with what reality is.  Why continue to prop up articles that will be inferior due to Wikipedia's source restrictions and may eventually get deleted due to "notability" reasons?  As was mentioned, the leaders of Wikipedia seem to want that site's contents to be small enough to fit on a bookshelf for some reason.

I'm not familiar with very many non-AARoads resources that are still being actively updated (and I say that as the owner of one of them).  It seems as if that aspect of the hobby has had a very sharp decline over the past 20 years.

[CanesFan27]

Valerie:

I don't give links to Wikipedia or aaroads wiki. I follow the don't use wiki as a source rule.

The reality is that while it's a big deal to those who split off from wiki - but to the general population (including myself) whether it's wiki, here, or a fandom site - which there already is - it's not.

As for people updating or not updating sites, we do, Jeff does, Roberson does, Bessert does, as do others.  They also interact personally with the readers/followers (hobby and more often outside of) something a cold wiki (regardless of its location) can never do.

[Strider]

Then, somebody have to do something about it. Make AARoads Wiki stand out from Wikipedia. Since they're both using the same information, I can understand why some of us are fighting them. Again, you cannot expect every one of us to adapt if same information can be accessed from the first thing they see after they type something on Google search.

For example, on Google search, I typed "Interstate 11". Guess which site popped up first? The Wikipedia one. The AARoads Wiki section is found near the bottom of the search list (from my laptop it is). Guess where people are going to click on first? Usually the first or second link they see, even if it is Wikipedia one. You can't fault them for that. However, to point out that we should be supporting their decisions instead of fighting them is over the top as each person have their website preferences for finding information. No matter what information they found, most of the time they come in here everyday to talk/share/complain/rant/discuss/argue/fighting about them. That's the support this site received from both the roadgeek and general population communities. This site has already proven to be the most reliable and probably the best source for information related to roads (IMO) and I thank them for their hard work, but let's just not push more members away just because you guys want AARoads Wiki to be your main source for finding information instead of what they want to use.

Since this is a I-42 topic, this kind of discussion should be moved somewhere else. We're already going way off the topic here.






 

[Rothman]

I think this is a rather moot conversation.  As Wikipedia deletes road-related pages, AARoads Wiki will preserve them.  Doesn't matter who clicks on what now.

[english si]

I think this is a rather moot conversation.  As Wikipedia deletes road-related pages, AARoads Wiki will preserve them.  Doesn't matter who clicks on what now.

Yes - my original point wasn't so much 'use AARW, its the best' but more advise against taking Wikipedia seriously:

1) Don't treat wikipedia as some important source in the roadgeek community that reflects the ground and therefore its being edited or not is important.

2) Don't waste your time editing wikipedia given the hostile environment towards roads articles they have set up.

The first point would equally apply to AARW, even though the second one doesn't.