Roadgeek Wiki?

[Roadsguy]

By a long shot, I'm hoping there's a roadgeek wiki.

If there is, well, please say so.

[NYYPhil777]

This would be a great idea for AARoads to maybe start up.
I have not yet found a roadgeek Wikia.

[agentsteel53]

I think Wikipedia is sufficient, unless you're specifically looking for an article on Cal Rogers or something.

[Alex]

This would be a great idea for AARoads to maybe start up.
I have not yet found a roadgeek Wikia.

There was some interest from a contributor for a wiki on AARoads which led to me setting up the structure for mediawiki. Nothing ever came of that and it sat idle for a year. Last time I did an overhaul on the server file wise, I deep sixed the mediawiki.

Not going to start another...

[NE2]

Wikia is overcommercialized shite anyway.

[NYYPhil777]

Indeed, all I need is a good road atlas.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Wikia is overcommercialized shite anyway.

I blame Angela.

[hbelkins]

Oh please, someone put an article on Calrog on Wiki. And do one for Randy Hersh, too, while you're at it! 

[english si]

I think Wikipedia is sufficient, unless you're specifically looking for an article on Cal Rogers or something.

Or anything decent on British roads.

I'm surprised that WikiProject:US Roads hasn't had unreliable sources/plagiarism issues that the UK equivalent has. Oh, and cockwombles who keep putting wrong info up. Oh and there's the issue of original research and notability.

[NE2]

Oh please, someone put an article on Calrog on Wiki. And do one for Randy Hersh, too, while you're at it! 

Only if you get one too. Or at least a redirect to something suitably insulting.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Wikia is overcommercialized shite anyway.

I blame Angela.

Seems about right, given that Wikia's treatment of its hosted wikis is what caused me to leave Wikia to begin with (separately from when I left Wikipedia).

[Scott5114]

The Wikipedia roadgeeks have talked on and off about starting an independent wiki with our content (usually whenever the non-roads portions of the community start behaving in a fashion that disrupts our work) but usually it's brought up that securing hosting, setting everything up, re-implementing processes like the deletion and adminship processes, and having to transfer everything would make it not worth doing, especially when you consider that without the Wikipedia name recognition it would be much more lightly trafficked.

So for now we remain on Wikipedia, and will do so for the foreseeable future. The only thing that might change that is if there is some prevailing change in the Wikipedia community, like a push towards deletionism that causes road articles to begin to be deleted, or tightening of sourcing policies to the extent that it becomes impossible to write a well-cited road article due to lack of sources (there are always fringe groups complaining that because DOT sources are first-party and self-published there must be something wrong with them, and people gripe about maps periodically–it is doubtful that these people will ever win over a majority of the community but stranger things have happened). Wikipedia's U.S. Roads project currently maintains 10,750 articles, so there is a lot of content there that would need to be copied over or duplicated if anyone else were to start an independent wiki.

[Alps]

I think Wikipedia is sufficient, unless you're specifically looking for an article on Cal Rogers or something.

Or anything decent on British roads.

I'm surprised that WikiProject:US Roads hasn't had unreliable sources/plagiarism issues that the UK equivalent has.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*breathe*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Really? We haven't had unreliable sources? That's like saying the USA has never lost at soccer.

[Scott5114]

I think Wikipedia is sufficient, unless you're specifically looking for an article on Cal Rogers or something.

Or anything decent on British roads.

I'm surprised that WikiProject:US Roads hasn't had unreliable sources/plagiarism issues that the UK equivalent has. Oh, and cockwombles who keep putting wrong info up. Oh and there's the issue of original research and notability.

The US roads WikiProject has managed to avoid problems of that sort by frequently sending articles to the higher review processes where such things are scrutinized. This has given us a fairly firm idea of what is and is not considered acceptable, and allowed us to keep abreast of the evolving norms of the community, so we have fewer run-ins with that sort of thing than we might otherwise have had. Occasionally we will get someone from outside insisting on changes to this or that, but I think that's unavoidable.

It is my understanding that the UK road project is currently fairly inactive, at least when compared to USRD. I am not sure what exactly their plan of action or priorities are/were, either; the only time I have interacted with a group of UKRD editors, it was when they were arguing loudly against standardizing junction lists with the United States for reasons which seemed to amount to simply not wanting to do things the way people from the US do. Project inactivity is hardly unique globally; CRWP (Canada) is a one-man project at this point focusing on Ontario, and the Indian roads project is all but dead.