The Wikipedia roads thread

[NE2]

Sup shitty "good article": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_State_Route_249

[Scott5114]

Care to be specific?

[Alps]

Not the best writing. Bad grammar, extraneous information, and just cumbersomely poor wording choices. Sample:

There is no section of SR 249 that is included as a part of the National Highway System, a system of routes determined to be the most important for the nation's economy, mobility and defense.[6][7] The highway is maintained by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) like all other state routes in the state. The department tracks the traffic volumes along all state highways as a part of its maintenance responsibilities using a metric called average annual daily traffic (AADT). This measurement is a calculation of the traffic level along a segment of roadway for any average day of the year. In 2009, ODOT figured that lowest traffic levels were the 820 vehicles used the highway daily on the section that is concurrent with SR 2. The peak traffic volumes were 6,720 vehicles AADT along a section of SR 249 between US 127 and SR 15.

[NE2]

Yeah, that. The fact that it's not NHS is unnecessary, and the AADT wording is padded to hell (and pretty useless to the layman without an indication of how busy these figures mean the highway actually is - better would be simply linking to the ODOT AADT in the external links).

Also:

SR 249 heads southeast from the Indiana—Ohio state line, as a two-lane highway passing through farmland, with some houses. The route passes over the St. Joseph River and turns due east. The highway has an intersection at SR 49, in rural Defiance County. After the intersection with SR 49 the highway enters farmland and woodland, with a few houses. The route has an intersection with SR 2, this intersection is the western terminus of the SR 2 concurrency. The concurrency heads east, passing through farmland, until SR 2 turns north in the community of Farmer. SR 249 heads east having an intersection with US 127. The route turns southeast, before ending at an intersection with SR 15 in Ney.[4][5]

Emphasis added.

[FightingIrish]

Okay, anyone care to edit this? I know nothing of the road, so I'm not sure what I can do there.

[empirestate]

Also:

SR 249 heads southeast from the Indiana—Ohio state line, as a two-lane highway passing through farmland, with some houses. The route passes over the St. Joseph River and turns due east. The highway has an intersection at SR 49, in rural Defiance County. After the intersection with SR 49 the highway enters farmland and woodland, with a few houses. The route has an intersection with SR 2, this intersection is the western terminus of the SR 2 concurrency. The concurrency heads east, passing through farmland, until SR 2 turns north in the community of Farmer. SR 249 heads east having an intersection with US 127. The route turns southeast, before ending at an intersection with SR 15 in Ney.[4][5]

Emphasis added.

Especially since right in introductory paragraph it says:

The whole route is a rural two-lane highway and passes through farmland.

It doesn't seem necessary to elaborate, turn-by-turn, how the route continues to enter areas of farmland. In fact, my main disappointment with the route descriptions is that they read like junction lists and DOT maps that are slightly adapted into prose, but still retain a primarily laundry-list character. This is more than just aesthetic; the first sentence of the description is this:

SR 249 heads southeast from the Indiana—Ohio state line...

Not really, it doesn't; it's almost entirely an east-west route. Only the first kilometer or so is NW-SE, but the prominent placement of this sentence serves to introduce the route as having that bearing overall. I think with most of these route descriptions, the point-by-point character of a junction list needs to be more thoroughly digested and presented as a cogent narrative, perhaps something like this:

"State Route 249 begins at the western edge of the village of Ney, continuing the path of State Route 15 where that road turns north toward Bryan. SR 249 strikes due west across the northwest quadrant of Defiance County and crosses the St. Joseph River just before its end at the Indiana state line, where it continues as DeKalb County Road 40S. It is entirely rural in character, traversing an area of section-line roads and tilled fields of [whatever crop is prominent there] interrupted by scattered homes and farm buildings."

And so on; if you really want to include route junctions (possible here but unwieldy for longer routes), you could condense it as:

"Along its length, SR 249 intersects US 127 just west of Ney, overlaps State Route 2 for two miles west from Farmer, and meets State Route 49 between Hicksville and Edgerton."

[J N Winkler]

It doesn't seem necessary to elaborate, turn-by-turn, how the route continues to enter areas of farmland. In fact, my main disappointment with the route descriptions is that they read like junction lists and DOT maps that are slightly adapted into prose, but still retain a primarily laundry-list character. This is more than just aesthetic; the first sentence of the description is this:

SR 249 heads southeast from the Indiana—Ohio state line...

Not really, it doesn't; it's almost entirely an east-west route. Only the first kilometer or so is NW-SE, but the prominent placement of this sentence serves to introduce the route as having that bearing overall. I think with most of these route descriptions, the point-by-point character of a junction list needs to be more thoroughly digested and presented as a cogent narrative, perhaps something like this:

"State Route 249 begins at the western edge of the village of Ney, continuing the path of State Route 15 where that road turns north toward Bryan. SR 249 strikes due west across the northwest quadrant of Defiance County and crosses the St. Joseph River just before its end at the Indiana state line, where it continues as DeKalb County Road 40S. It is entirely rural in character, traversing an area of section-line roads and tilled fields of [whatever crop is prominent there] interrupted by scattered homes and farm buildings."

I agree with your criticisms, but I think even this rewrite doesn't completely address them because it is still quite heavy on details that fail to address the "So what?  Why should we care?" factor.  (As an example, it seems unnecessary to specify the type of crop, and that description may in any case be inaccurate at any given point in time if the farmers in that area generally practice crop rotation.  It seems equally redundant to say that the farmland is punctuated by houses and barns, because those appurtenances are generally recognized as part of modern farming and thus can be considered to be included in the phrase "farmland.")  I suggest that a rewrite could be made even more brief by exploiting these salient facts:

*  For most of its approximately 15-mile length, SR 249 is a county section line road, the main exceptions being the "grid snap" segment immediately east of the Indiana state line and the connection to SR 15 in Ney.

*  SR 249 is a feeder state highway lying entirely in Defiance County in northwest Ohio.

Here is how I might do it:

"Ohio State Route 249 is a feeder state highway lying in rural Defiance County in northwest Ohio.  It begins at the Indiana state line and ends at SR 15 in Ney, overlapping an east-west county section line road through level farmland for most of its length."

(I considered writing "cultivated alluvial bottomland" instead but didn't since it is only an educated guess on my part that this is the case.)

The advantage of specifying that SR 249 overlaps a county section line road and that it runs through cultivated farmland is that you can draw on the reader's understanding of these concepts to communicate very quickly that the highway is very straight and flat with few curves except for "grid snap" segments and connections to other state highways.  The reader thus reaches a decision point very quickly:  "I like primary state highways that are glorified county section line roads, so I'll read more," or "This sounds like a boring drive, so I'll stop reading."  In contrast, the Wikipedia article gets too far in the tall weeds and is almost as bad for this purpose as, say, a list of curve PCs, PIs, and PTs with northings and eastings.

[vtk]

(I considered writing "cultivated alluvial bottomland" instead but didn't since it is only an educated guess on my part that this is the case.)

That kind of specificity is a hallmark of Wikipedia.  At least two of those words should be links to other articles.  As for its accuracy, I'm not so sure either.  Without looking at a map, this sounds like part of what was once the Great Black Swamp before it was drained for agricultural use.  Does that change your educated guess?

[Billy F 1988]

Just my two cents, NE2; don't write an article on any roadway whatsoever unless you can verify for yourself that 1) the roadway exists in the state's route logbook, 2) the route was commissioned by state and AASHTO officials, and 3) all the maps verify that the route exists along with the roads it intersects with.

I don't know anything on how to build a Wikipedia article or how to edit one, but the way I see it in regards to SR 249, that would be the way I would do it. 1) Verify that SR 249 exists in the logbook, 2) SR 249 was commissioned, and 3) all maps (Google, MapQuest, Yahoo, Bing, etc.) indicate that SR 249 exists. You'd have to basically drive SR 249 to know what it is about. That is the approach I take if I was to write an article on a particular Montana roadway like I-90 or US 789 because I've either A) driven on them, or B) rid the route as a passenger. You really need to put more thought in how you approach what you know about certain roadways in every state, much like SR 249 because the Average Joe Q Public that visits Wikipedia and sees what you have written initially may be inclined to say "This person is a complete whackjob" or "This person is a biggot" or things like that and they'll probably challenge your article to the fullest extent to where Wikipedia will essentially just remove the whole page altogether.

Please do more research and maybe look up photos of SR 249. People are more keen to looking at your Wikipedia article on SR 249 if it has a detailed map of where it starts, where it ends, what roads it intersects, the mileage, and some photographs either by you or by others (you'd have to ask the holder of the photos, of course, to use them via commons agreements and so forth). Once you've done that, then people who thought "This person's a whackjob" or "a biggot" at first will perhaps change their point of view and be inclined to think "This person is on to something. He/she knows something about this subject that I have yet to learn and am eager to know more."

You'll get better, trust me. You just have to put more thought into the article or the powers-that-be of Wikipedia will challenge it and will eventually turn it down.

[rschen7754]

AARoads... the http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/ of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. 

In all seriousness, we do appreciate hearing any concerns that you have about Wikipedia articles. Please feel free to let any of us who are active in both sites know if there are issues (though I suppose Scott5114 is the best one to contact as he's the most active of us here). We also do need more knowledgeable editors on Wikipedia, and can help you get started if you want to join us!

As far as the concern about articles being boring, consisting of turn-by-turn driving directions through farmland, and giving no indication as to why the road was built... it's a known problem, to say the least, especially with our articles on shorter routes. It's something that we are trying to address as we work with newer editors, but it is not an easy problem to fix. With that being said, there are some articles on Wikipedia that are actually of high quality (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_96, and most of Michigan in fact); the variations are well known.

[english si]

Just my two cents, NE2; don't write an article on any roadway whatsoever

You could have ended there!

OK, I jest - NE2 knows quite a lot and is a keen roads researcher - he'd make great articles, though not if he has to deal with a Wikiwonk getting in his grill (like what happened with many UK roadgeeks, hence why SABRE has its own wiki).

However he didn't write the article, just posted it as an example of bad writing called good by WP...

In all seriousness, we do appreciate hearing any concerns that you have about Wikipedia articles.

My concern is that they are on Wikipedia.

[hotdogPi]

New Hampshire doesn't give as much information as Massachusetts does. I live near the border, and I look at both states. (I do not have the username 1 there.) I (you might be able to guess my username) had to write the route junctions for two routes, and the description for one of them.

[vtk]

I recently realized how much the Ohio state route markers on Wikipedia make me go "erk".*  They're based on a very small and not-very-detailed drawing in the Ohio MUTCD, which isn't itself a very good representation of what's in the field.  A better source for the proper design of the Ohio state route markers is in the Ohio Sign Design Manual.  That source isn't perfect, as it essentially consists of tracing the shape from a grid, but it's the better of only two official sources. 

Having traveled around much of Ohio, I'll concede that there is some variation in the shape of the route markers in the field.  Most of them look more like the design in the SDM than in the MUTCD.  Some of the more recent ones in one part of the state look exactly like in Wikipedia, and I suspect that's where the contractor actually got the outline for those.

I've actually made SVG files of the Ohio state route markers, following the original grid-trace pattern in the SDM as faithfully as possible.  I'm thinking about replacing the templates on Wikimedia Commons with ones using the shapes I derived from the SDM, and requesting the shield-maker bot to update all the route shields from the fixed templates.  But I'm concerned such action might be seen as a kind of vandalism, or at least the needless fixing of something that "isn't broken".  Note, the shapes have already been changed before; originally, the templates were based on photos, and I think the OMUTCD versions are a step backwards.  Could someone more familiar with the US Roads Wikiproject community advise me on how to proceed?  If necessary, I can document exactly why I think the Ohio SDM is a better source than the OMUTCD, and my process of faithfully reproducing the original design.  (Much of this I already talked about in this thread.)

*Ironically, I think it's my work with the SDM that has made me more aware of the variations, causing me to dislike the WP version.

[FightingIrish]

Good stuff on the interstate highway system on Wikipedia  , as long it's properly taken care of and (all?) the informative edits are within the online encyclopedia's guidelines or standards.

I used to edit on wikipedia for a few years before I grew tired of it and learned the amount of edits are questionable...or inaccurate.  Apparently, wikipedia has an article of future interstates and takes it with a "pinch of salt". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Interstate_Highways

That's a pretty dubious article there. I've watched it for awhile, and while some of it does have some basis in fact (I-41 is pretty close to becoming reality, we know that CA-99 is being upgraded to interstate and I-11 does have some serious plans for being built), there is a lot of fantasy there. I don't care if there is a proposed I-3 in Georgia and it got Congressional approval. That freeway will never be built.

[empirestate]

I agree with your criticisms, but I think even this rewrite doesn't completely address them because it is still quite heavy on details that fail to address the "So what?  Why should we care?" factor.  (As an example, it seems unnecessary to specify the type of crop, and that description may in any case be inaccurate at any given point in time if the farmers in that area generally practice crop rotation.  It seems equally redundant to say that the farmland is punctuated by houses and barns, because those appurtenances are generally recognized as part of modern farming and thus can be considered to be included in the phrase "farmland.")

Sure...my re-write basically aims to rephrase the existing amount of information in a more palatable way. Whether the included set of information is the correct one would be a further piece of the discussion. As for the crops line, I just threw that in as an idea of the sort of color I feel this kind of narrative needs; the specifics of the fact included, if any, would likewise be subject to consideration and verification, or exclusion.

There's also the inescapable fact that if these articles fully met my preferences of how they ought to read, they'd start to exceed the scope of Wikipedia in the first place as you'd start to get into some more qualitative and interpretive assessments. But that's okay, it's what my own website is for.

[Fredddie]

I recently realized how much the Ohio state route markers on Wikipedia make me go "erk".*  They're based on a very small and not-very-detailed drawing in the Ohio MUTCD, which isn't itself a very good representation of what's in the field.  A better source for the proper design of the Ohio state route markers is in the Ohio Sign Design Manual.  That source isn't perfect, as it essentially consists of tracing the shape from a grid, but it's the better of only two official sources. 

Having traveled around much of Ohio, I'll concede that there is some variation in the shape of the route markers in the field.  Most of them look more like the design in the SDM than in the MUTCD.  Some of the more recent ones in one part of the state look exactly like in Wikipedia, and I suspect that's where the contractor actually got the outline for those.

I've actually made SVG files of the Ohio state route markers, following the original grid-trace pattern in the SDM as faithfully as possible.  I'm thinking about replacing the templates on Wikimedia Commons with ones using the shapes I derived from the SDM, and requesting the shield-maker bot to update all the route shields from the fixed templates.  But I'm concerned such action might be seen as a kind of vandalism, or at least the needless fixing of something that "isn't broken".  Note, the shapes have already been changed before; originally, the templates were based on photos, and I think the OMUTCD versions are a step backwards.  Could someone more familiar with the US Roads Wikiproject community advise me on how to proceed?  If necessary, I can document exactly why I think the Ohio SDM is a better source than the OMUTCD, and my process of faithfully reproducing the original design.  (Much of this I already talked about in this thread.)

*Ironically, I think it's my work with the SDM that has made me more aware of the variations, causing me to dislike the WP version.

I had a hand in the current version of the Ohio shields.  I wasn't so much concerned with the Ohio shape as I was the numbers, which were cringeworthy at best.  If you have something that's better, by all means overwrite the template and we'll redo them again.

[bulldog1979]

Monday marks the 80th anniversary since Brockway Mountain Drive, a scenic road near Copper Harbor, Michigan, was opened to the public. The road runs along the ridge of Brockway Mountain, part of the Keweenaw Fault. It was built as a public works project during the Great Depression. In honor of the occasion, its article on Wikipedia has been chosen as "Today's Featured Article". Since the servers run on UTC, it has been displayed on the Main Page for about an hour and a half now (as of the time I'm posting this.)

[getemngo]

This is a relatively minor gripe, but it won't stop bothering me.  The map for U.S. 2 shows the St. Ignace to Sault Ste. Marie portion of the highway, which was decommissioned in the early 1980s, as still active.  I pointed this out on the U.S. Route 2 talk page back in July (should I have made a talk page for the map itself instead?), but nobody has acknowledged it and the original mapmaker has apparently left Wikipedia.

On a much more general note... I don't know how to Wikipedia. I've had an account since 2006, but I've made less than 40 edits and they're almost all minor. There's so much to learn about etiquette, what constitutes a good source, when to make a new article vs. expanding an existing article, etc. I don't know how to join a WikiProject or what I could contribute - especially with road stuff, because I don't know anything outside of Michigan, and Michigan already has some of the best coverage of any state. It's like there's nothing left to add in my "territory." And bulldog1979 talks a lot about Wikipedian gatherings and places that Wikipedians chat online - where are those?

There's lots of non-road stuff I see that needs help - a lot of pages for retail and restaurant chains that are disorganized or missing history, especially - and I feel like I could start fixing those. But that still doesn't answer my question of where to begin. It all seems so overwhelming.

[hotdogPi]

The syntax for formatting is usually somewhere else in the page, so if you have trouble with formatting, look somewhere else in the source code.

Try fixing typos if you can.

[getemngo]

The syntax for formatting is usually somewhere else in the page, so if you have trouble with formatting, look somewhere else in the source code.

Try fixing typos if you can.

Thanks, but I mean, that's what I've been doing. Fixing typos, fixing formatting, fixing links that go to redirects or disambiguation pages, and that's about it.

But I want to do more. It's the difference between being a background player and being a member of the community. I'd like to get to the point where I'm researching and writing content that isn't there yet. There's a lot of pages and sections where the tone is way off, or it's not cited properly or whatever, and I don't want to just start writing things that are awful and need other people to come in and clean them up.

This is probably beyond the scope of this topic, and I should probably just ask the people I know like Michael (bulldog1979) in private instead.    But this can't be the worst place to get a couple pointers.

[NE2]

fixing links that go to redirects

God damn it. Don't do this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken

[bulldog1979]

The syntax for formatting is usually somewhere else in the page, so if you have trouble with formatting, look somewhere else in the source code.

Try fixing typos if you can.

Thanks, but I mean, that's what I've been doing. Fixing typos, fixing formatting, fixing links that go to redirects or disambiguation pages, and that's about it.

But I want to do more. It's the difference between being a background player and being a member of the community. I'd like to get to the point where I'm researching and writing content that isn't there yet. There's a lot of pages and sections where the tone is way off, or it's not cited properly or whatever, and I don't want to just start writing things that are awful and need other people to come in and clean them up.

This is probably beyond the scope of this topic, and I should probably just ask the people I know like Michael (bulldog1979) in private instead.    But this can't be the worst place to get a couple pointers.

Well, it doesn't help as much on that talk page because there four WikiProject banners so they appear collapsed by default, but if you expand the U.S. Roads WikiProject banner, there is a line that says, "This article has a map. If the map has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it." Following that link takes someone to the requests page where our map makers can be notified to make a correction. I just saw this on here and I'm uploading a corrected map now.

[roadfro]

On a much more general note... I don't know how to Wikipedia. I've had an account since 2006, but I've made less than 40 edits and they're almost all minor. There's so much to learn about etiquette, what constitutes a good source, when to make a new article vs. expanding an existing article, etc. I don't know how to join a WikiProject or what I could contribute - especially with road stuff, because I don't know anything outside of Michigan, and Michigan already has some of the best coverage of any state. It's like there's nothing left to add in my "territory." And bulldog1979 talks a lot about Wikipedian gatherings and places that Wikipedians chat online - where are those?

A starting place that might be helpful for you, especially if you want to work on road articles, would be the New User Orientation of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. It may not help with finding something new to contribute to Michigan, but does cover some of the basics of the USRD project and general Wikipedia stuff you're asking about. Browse the USRD navigation template on that page for some other very helpful links. You can add yourself to a WikiProject simply by signing up on the participants page.

[rschen7754]

We also have a channel on Freenode IRC, #wikipedia-en-roads. If you drop by there we can help you out!

[bugo]

I don't contribute to Wikipedia other than small corrections because I don't want to put all that work in and not get credit for it (sure, my screenname will be listed in the edit page, but most users don't even click there) and because any random asshole can completely undo my work and replace it with total garbage.