Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[coatimundi]

Also as we've updated older pages, we have tried to go back and add more citations. Another issue we have run into is citing other road web sites that are no longer online. Of course, with that, you are trusting that the original author was correct, or had their own sources cited/verified. Back in the late 90s or early 2000s, the bulk of road sites tended to be good enough as sources. Times have definitely changed.

I created Southeast Texas Highways in the late 90's basically just from TxDOT records with a few photos I had taken. It was just basically a prettier and better-organized version of information that was already online. I don't recall throwing any real opinions or unvetted information in there. It seemed like, at that time, you had more responsibility as a content producer because there just were not that many sites out there, so you got a lot of traffic. Putting up a web site was much less accessible than it is today, mainly because it required more work and the tools and processes had to be understood. Hence the jackass factor today, I think.

And I think that's hopefully a future for the internet: have a separation between more researched sites, like this one, and something that just happens to be out there. Google has its ranking algorithms that weight more reputable sites now, but you can still easily work through the cracks by putting together either an overly obscure query or a poorly constructed one.

Sorry for the OT tangent...

[cahwyguy]

I'll second what Alex said. In the early days of my site, it was primarily from my research and what I -- umm, cribbed, shall we say  -- from other sites (Casey, Joel, Mike, Andy Fields, etc) plus the excellent stuff from m.t.r in those days. I was poor in crediting things other than my sources page. Over time, I acquired more reliable sources but didn't always cite things from my research. These days I'm citing up the wazoo (and that's painful  ). What I'm not doing is ensuring those citation links remain valid. I am sure loads of links throughout my site have gone stale; my current editor doesn't make checking stale links easy. Plus, so many road sites have disappeared....

I'll note that one thing I have done on my site is not include opinion, but that doesn't mean there aren't actual errors or incomplete research. I fix them as they are pointed out to me. In the last batch, I know I fixed a long standing error on Route 24 (Ashby meeting Broadway).

Daniel

[kendancy66]

The CA 57 segment could remain as an unsigned branch of I-210. The concept of a branch route would not be new, as I-465 previously had the branch (later renumbered to I-865) west to I-65 in addition to the beltway alignment around Indianapolis.

Another example is I-270 at the Washington Beltway (I-495). Is the "spur" portion of I-270 a true Interstate Highway or is it considered to be something less, such as a state route or connecting route of some kind? SR 57 (between SR 210 and I-10) is not really a branch of I-210; it is the first segment of a major north-south freeway corridor that has a purpose beyond just connecting to I-10. So that may make this a little different from I-270 in Maryland or I-465/865.

Both legs of the I-270 tie-in to I-495 are in the system...they originally had separate designations:


Photo from late 1960s

Great picture. I remember that split signed as I 270 to the left and I 270 SPUR signed on the right.

SAMSUNG-SGH-I747