Things never said by roadgeeks

[agentsteel53]

What in the hell is a trafficway?

I've asked that, wondering why they would name something after such an unappealing feature.  It's almost as bad as a road a potholeway.

[NE2]

Let's just make the topic what it really is - things never said by me. I'll start the new liberated topic: "pooing is cool"

[Scott5114]

Oh, well if that's what the thread's about, how about "'Multiplex' and 'decommission' are perfectly valid words that can be used in Wikipedia articles with no problems at all"

[ctsignguy]

"I am glad that US 66 was decommissioned....why would ANYONE writes songs or produce a TV show based upon such a thing?

[corco]

how about "'Multiplex' and 'decommission' are perfectly valid words that can be used in Wikipedia articles with no problems at all"

Wait...I understand why "multiplex" is weird, but what's wrong with decommission?

[Scott5114]

Trust me, we don't want to go down that road.

[ctsignguy]

Trust me, we don't want to go down that road.

Pun intended?

[cu2010]

(referring to mile-based exit numbers) "These exit numbers make no sense! Why is 106 the next exit after 98? Doesn't 99 come next?"

[Michael]

^^^ Non-roadgeeks I've talked to understand mile-based exits, even though we have sequential-based exits here in NY.

[NE2]

I meant "things never said by the person making this post", because that's really what half the posts in this thread are.

(By the way, decommission is ambiguous - if you say that Route 73 was decommissioned through Podunk, that could mean that the town now maintains it but signs are still up, that signs were removed but it's still state-maintained, that it was renumbered, that the road was physically destroyed, or any combination of the above.)

[Scott5114]

I meant "things never said by the person making this post", because that's really what half the posts in this thread are.

Well, if that's what we're doing, then everyone in this thread is a liar, because by mentioning something you've never said, you have just said it, and therefore you have not never said it.

Actually, that applies to everything in this thread! Roadgeeks are the ones posting here! The entire thread is a sham!

[Roadsign199qc]

I didn't know my question was so popular. (What's an highway)

[kurumi]

Roadgeeks are the ones posting here! The entire thread is a sham!

* sobs *

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Roadgeeks are the ones posting here! The entire thread is a sham!

* sobs *

I quit!

[J N Winkler]

By the way, decommission is ambiguous - if you say that Route 73 was decommissioned through Podunk, that could mean that the town now maintains it but signs are still up, that signs were removed but it's still state-maintained, that it was renumbered, that the road was physically destroyed, or any combination of the above.

This is actually one reason I find roadgeek websites hard to deal with--various claims are made and anchored to dates, but the primary source evidence is never cited, so it is hard to pin down what exactly is being claimed.  A statement about alignments means something when single-sheet state highway maps are used as the primary source and something very different altogether when it is based on the actual construction plans.

I haven't tried to maintain a website with route log and I have done very little editing of Wikipedia articles related to highways.  However, I did do at least one paragraph on the I-19 metric signs and everything I said was related directly to the original construction plans.

[corco]

This is actually one reason I find roadgeek websites hard to deal with--various claims are made and anchored to dates, but the primary source evidence is never cited, so it is hard to pin down what exactly is being claimed.  A statement about alignments means something when single-sheet state highway maps are used as the primary source and something very different altogether when it is based on the actual construction plans.

That's sometimes hard to do because the information is oftentimes poorly documented itself and one's definition of a route's course is sort of an aggregate of lots of different things (official route logs, maps, actual road signage)- especially when you get into the area of concurrencies. On my site, I say what I think is right and try to back that claim up with whatever necessary (99% of the time that's photographs) but try to acknowledge various other hypotheses about routing whenever possible. A case in point would be the mythical Wyoming 255, for which I have found no evidence towards its existence. Every piece of field signing and other marking would suggest that "255" is simply the internal number for 25 Business for a couple blocks. In Wyoming, internal control numbers are very often different from the highway number, but for some reason it was decided that in the case of 255 and 344, those were actually separate state highways that actually run concurrent with another route for their entire existence.

[NE2]

A case in point would be the mythical Wyoming 255, for which I have found no evidence towards its existence.

ftp://wydot-ftp.dot.state.wy.us/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Ref.%20Book/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Reference%20Book.pdf (forum breaks the link; remove the initial http) lists it on page 121. Typical crappy quantity-over-quality article though.

[corco]

ftp://wydot-ftp.dot.state.wy.us/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Ref.%20Book/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Reference%20Book.pdf (forum breaks the link; remove the initial http) lists it on page 121. Typical crappy quantity-over-quality article though.

And that is officially the only document wherein I have ever seen it mentioned as a real state highway and not just a section control number (including the detailed Casper area maps and other documents I had access to while doing contract work for WYDOT last year- wherein I actually compiled a lot of the data that it looks like this book is based off of) that was somehow morphed into a state highway

[NE2]

I never said it was signed, just that WYDOT recognizes it as a route.

[corco]

I never said it was signed, just that WYDOT recognizes it as a route.

My thought is that given the body of documentation WYDOT has published/otherwise available (and I'm fairly certain I've seen a lot more than most), that is the only time I've actually seen it recognized as a route.

Another example I would point to is Wyoming 344, which is "roadgeek recognized," but not mentioned anywhere, not even in this book

[Henry]

Back to the subject:

What's a sign bridge?

[Michael]

Upon seeing a sign that violates MUTCD standards:
"That's not MUTCD compliant."
(I'd be surprised if a non-roadgeek even knew that a sign wasn't compliant)

"Why did Florida have colored route numbers?"
(note the lack of the word "shields")

[SSOWorld]

"What's a MUTCD?"

"There are federal standards? don't states have rights to do what they please?"

[Dr Frankenstein]

"There are federal standards? don't states have rights to do what they please?"

This one is even said by some roadgeeks in Canada.

[hbelkins]

"There are federal standards? don't states have rights to do what they please?"

Actually, I'm as road-geeky as they come, and I am constantly questioning the depth and breadth of federal standards.