Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:15, 21 August 2005

For a prior related policy consensus discussion, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy/Roads and streets.

I'm getting a little fed up with VfD being clogged with B road articles, and feel that this would be better argued out in a consensus page.

As far as I see it, argument boils down to the following:

• Keep - these are nationally designated roads, and the articles provide information on the British roading network. Some of these roads are notable other than by means of their designation, and all of them are worthy of articles. Misplaced Pages is not paper, we're not wasting pixels here.
• Delete - they're just country roads. The information about them can be merged into the articles on the places they run through. Misplaced Pages is not an atlas.
• Merge - there should, at the very least, be a list (or several lists) of the B road designations in the UK.
• Keep the notable ones, delete the rest - some are notable, yes, but most are not. Why keep the dross? (This may or may not accompany a merge into lists)

I welcome anyone who has taken part in the individual VfDs to contribute their thoughts to this subject below. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Readers that are unfamiliar with the subject might wish to consult Great Britain road numbering scheme. Pilatus 11:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles listed at VFD

• Earlham Road
• Elveley Drive
• Walton Summit motorway
• B855 road
• B870 road
• B871 road
• B873 road
• B874 road
• B876 road
• B1249
• B5062 road
• B5405 road
• B9168 road

Arguments for "Keep"

• Atlases are not always up-to-date or correct.
• These roads are numbered at the national level and posted.
• There seems to be no resource online that lists all the B roads.
• Like schools, roads are verifiable and locally important. In many cases, they play or have played important roles in local development. A comprehensive treatment of a region is impossible without a comprehensive treatment of its roads.
  • Comment. These minor roads probably played little role in the development of communities in Britain, since many settlements in Britain predate them by centuries. A Roads, and the train network, may have played a role in how some of these communities grew from small villages to important towns (like Crewe) but B roads have few such claims. Sabine's Sunbird 15:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is simply incorrect. Most A roads are of relatively recent construction, whereas many B roads are historically important trunk roads, once designated A roads, that have been downgraded due to construction of a new A road. For instance, part of the old A40 used to run on what are now the B4521, A477 and B4314. The B6265 was formerly part of the A66. A good part of the old A166 is now the B1414. A138 -> B1456, A145 -> B1062, part of the old A211 is now designated the B2210, A241 -> A284 and so on. --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for "Delete"

• Delete. These are just stretches of highway. In every case, the articles make no claim to notability beyond the fact that the roads connect two different places. All the information contained in these numerous articles could be easily represented on a map. There are 392,931 km of roads in the UK, 4,180,053 km in the US. If each road is an average of 40 km, we would need approximately 100,000 articles, an appriciable fraction of the total number of Wiki articles to date, with no appriciable increase in usefulness or knowledge. Sdedeo 04:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whils there are potentially 'only' 9,000 B roads in the UK, none of them are notable. B roads tend to just be either country lanes, or high streets. If they were even vaguely important to the British transport system as a whole, they'd be A roads (which aren't notable either, particularly). If the road itself is notable (ie, Regent Street in London) and happens to have a B-number designation, then that could be mentioned in its article. Being a B road does not in itself make a road encyclopaedic, no matter how verifiable it is. In effect, adding your loacl roads to wikipedia regardless of their suitability for an encyclopaedia is a form of vanity. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate dumping pit for pointless information, contrary to what some prominent 'keep' voters on VfD may believe. Proto t c 09:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't think of any notable B roads in the UK. In fact I couldn't name any of the B roads around where I live off the top of my head, they really aren't major routes. If there are notable roads that happen to be B roads, they probably have far more well known names that should be redirected to. the wub "?/!" 12:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - They're just too numerous and non-notable. They don't carry large swathes of traffic, even some of the large digit A roads are kinda none notable, but B roads are even more piddling. Unless the road has some historical significance or have some horrendous accident happen there in which everyone within a 5 mile radius died, then just leave them out. - Hahnchen 13:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. I was going to put my vote in the keep notable, delete rest on the off chance that one of them is notable for reasons beyond being a road, but to be honest I trust Misplaced Pages enough that should the situation arise it's notability will lead to it's being kept anyway. In any event my reasoning is per above. The level of detail in this case is simply too fine for an encyclopedia. A coaser level of detail is not a bad thing in this instance. Sabine's Sunbird 13:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I too was more of the 'Keep notable, delete the rest' POV initially but having thought about it I cannot think of a single reason why a B road should be notable as such. There could be an argument to say 'WP has entries for A1 road, A2 road and so on, so why not B1223 road? However where does this stop? Taken to its logical conclusion we could have a basis for including Acacia Drive as "notable" (after all, it's a road off the B1066), then the garden path at No. 26 Acacia Drive (which is off Acacia Drive]]. I suggest this has to stop somewhere, and "no B roads unless they are otherwise notable" should be that point. An article for a B road which has something notable happen on it should be a redirect to whatever the notable event was. Tonywalton 15:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the garden path at 26 Acacia Drive had a national roading classification, it would be very notable indeed, and definitely worth an article! Grutness...wha? 03:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A road is not notable because it is a road. There is more to notability than "being made of something hard and cars drive on you". The sheer abundance of these roads and the fact that for 99.9% of them there is absolutely nothing interesting to say about them tells me that we should get rid of the things. Consider, also, that keeping these B-roads opens up a further avalanche of similar roads from other countries in the world, which would be an unpleasant cluttering of uninteresting and trivial stubs. Lord Bob 19:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• delete them all. Most of A-roads aren't interesting enough for an article. --Tim Pope 19:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a point there. Looking at the 'UK Roads category' there seems to be a lot of "this road starts at A, goes to B, C and D, bypassing E, and ends up at F" A road cruft there as well. Perhaps this discussion should be widened to "numbered roads in the UK" rather than just B roads. Maybe any numbered road with a three-or-more digit number, unless notability is established rather than just stated (such as A720 road) , should be excluded? Tonywalton  | Talk 22:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete they are supremely uninteresting, nn and ne. Just occasionally there is somethign special about them in which case they can be kept if they have genuine standalone interest or mentioned in the relevant related article if that is how they come to note. But delete-unless-proven-otherwise. -Splash 20:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—Misplaced Pages is not an atlas, almanac, general knowledge database, or personal website. Misplaced Pages documents only notable persons, bands, movies, and buildings. It should document only notable roads as well and under whatever name they are best known by. --Tysto 05:07, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
• Delete — A road is not notable just because it is a road any more than a building is notable because it is a building. The Normalville strip mall is not the Duomo in Firenze. The duomo may deserve an article, the Normalville strip mall does not. The same applies for roads. I don't think the "keep only if notable" votes below are really saying anything — if the road is notable, then of course it should stay. Its article will assert notability, and that's how it will be judged. But the question is whether B-roads (and the like) should be in Misplaced Pages if there is not some assertion of notability beyond their road-ness. To me, the answer is clear: garbage in Misplaced Pages clutters up the namespace and dilutes the abiilty of users to find the information they really need. Nuke these with extreme prejudice. Nandesuka 05:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems some users are attempting to write a few hundred articles that, when all read together, vaguely describe a map. There is a reason why maps are not prose; I think the idea of a picture being worth a thousand words comes to mind. Maybe there should be a wikiatlas, though I imagine most road maps are under copyright. Anyway, any roads that are notable and happen to be B-roads can have an article. I bet there are few. -R. fiend 15:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some good argumentation all over. Seems like a lot of road cruft. /Peter 04:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I cannot see any circumstance when an article about a B road would not be better under another title. If anyone else can, do say. These articles should be deleted and policy made to prevent their recreation. Naturenet | Talk 16:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete One of the arguments for keeping them is that there is no national resource currently which lists them all - firstly is there a need to have a list of the "B" roads, secondly if there is a need, then surely that resource should be provided by the Department of Transport, the authority which grants the "B" road numbers in the first place. The road outside my house has a "B" number - however it does not merit an entry in Misplaced Pages. If they need to be listed, then should be listed in general geographical articles about places on those "B" roads.
• Delete I agree with most of the sentiments posted in favour of elimination. Dottore So 06:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for "Merge and/or Listify"

• Merge into one or more articles - 9,000 articles, all of which say "B-such-and-such is a minor road from A to C via B" does not a Misplaced Pages maketh. The same information can be placed into a list or series of lists about the B-roads. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Who is going to write this list of several thousand entries and who is willing to read it? People will use an atlas to find out what villages any B-road runs between. Pilatus 17:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If I lived in the UK I'd help write it. I helped a friend with Rhode Island State Highways. --SPUI (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the idea here is to agree the principle of what should be done, and worry about the logistics later. That was my approach anyway. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 00:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No one will ever consult a list to find what villages a given local road runs between. If at all, information about roads belings into the entry on the village, there it will be useful. Pilatus 10:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • See , even the Department for Transport doesn't have a list of all B-roads. And these are not the equivalent of state highways. the wub "?/!" 10:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for "Keep notable ones, delete the rest" (with or without listifying)

• Keep some, merge all This is my own choice for this one. Some will definitely be notable enough for articles, as a lot of them are quite notable, and all of them should be listed, although I concede that this would need more than one article. A model like New Zealand State Highway network could be used for the lists. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The NZ list seems equivalent to a list of UK motorways. Is there a list of 3rd class NZ roads?Sandpiper 20:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable ones, no list. The average B-road looks much like the image. If something notable can be said about any stretch of road by all means include it; the entry on the B5289 road – a scenic route through the Lake District – passes the bar, I'd say. As a whole, though, B-roads are just to small and too numerous to list all of them. Pilatus 11:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • (FWIW, I know what they look like. I may live in NZ now, but I spent much of my childhood in a house beside the B4031) Grutness...wha?
• I'll go with what Grutness has said on this one - "Keep some, merge all." Articles only for the notable ones, a list for the rest. -- BDAbramson 13:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep some, merge the rest. Note: The vast majority of these are non-notable, but a list doesn't hurt anything and could hypothetically be useful. --Scimitar 15:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• A list sounds feasible. Nearly all B roads are just roads, and as such very little can be said about them beyond description in unnecessary, spoken-map fashion. Flowerparty 17:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Having a "consensus" will make it easier for deletionists to get a marginal article deleted. The articles should be assessed on their individual merits the same as other articles. Osomec 14:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• There doesn't seem to be a terribly compelling reason to delete them, unless they already meet some deletion criteria or other, there seems to be a serious effort to work on these, let's keep them and see what happens. Trollderella 23:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if not specifically notable. From what I can find online, these are comparable to rural routes and city back-roads in the US. They're nationally designated for recordkeeping, not for funding and development. Gazpacho 02:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure what "listifying" means. I think probably most B roads are worth documenting somewhere, and Misplaced Pages is the place where some people have chosen to write some articles about them. I'm pleased about this. It makes Misplaced Pages more useful and roads less mysterious. --Tony Sidaway 01:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Listifying - as in "delete the articles, but create one or more lists which cover the tiny amount of information needed from them". If, as suggested, there are several thousand of these roads, it would need more than one list (for example, a short paragraph on each of 250 roads would fill a list article, so 2500 roads would take 10 lists, plus an eleventh page discussing B roads in general and linking to the lists). Grutness...wha? 04:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, It makes ... and roads less mysterious.' WTF? How are minor roads mysterious? They are stretches of tarmack between small villages. Anyone capable of reading an A-Z can master B roads. Sabine's Sunbird 04:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, one way that they are a little mysterious that a list or article might help with - if I tell you the number of a B road, can you tell me what part of the country it's in? There is a system, but it's a mystery to most people. Grutness...wha? 08:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It exists: Great Britain road numbering scheme & Incorrectly numbered roads in Great Britain. --TimPope 08:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, otherwise not. The road numbering system is such that a major road could be designated as a B road, because from the national perspective through traffic is expected to follow the preferred A route path. Judging from where I live, the A road designations can be quite eccentric. Also, in some parts of the country major roads may be M, with A support, while elsewhere there is a lack of motorways. So if someone is assembling a category of major UK roads, then it may be appropriate to list some B roads. I have no idea how many roads ought to be in the existing category of UK roads, but judging from the number there now, it would not be a big issue to keep some. Having said that, I see little point in a separate article which only says 'road joining X to Y', even if it is an A road. So I would apply the same principle to A and B roads. The New Zealand list of roads joining towns seems quite adequate for any road which is otherwise just a road. Nothing deserves listing independantly just because it has a national road designation. Now, if someone could include information actually describing the quality of the road, scenic value, number of traffic lights, numbers of accidents, then that might be useful to someone.Sandpiper 20:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Other options

General discussion

• How many B roads are there? Dozens, hundreds? Fg2 06:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The B road system in the UK numbering system is B1234, so there are potentially 10,000. But I don't think there are any 1, 2 or 3 digit ones, and they don't start with 0, so the maximum is 9,000. Whilst maybe not all the numbers are used, a quick play with Autoroute tells me that most of them are (the 10 random numbers I tried all scored a road). And looking at an atlas tells me that there are many, many B roads across the whole of the country. So I'd say there's at least 8,000. I don't know if there's a way to get a more accurate figure. Proto t c 09:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The B9099 runs north from Perth, and there are several three digit ones. However, not all the numbers are used by a long, long way. ISTR that those which started from A roads starting with a 1 also started with a 1 and so on... very few are in the upper section of any thousand, though (numbers like B2980 are rare). I'd say your estimate is extremely high, BTW. I did a quick tally of the county I know best (Northamptonshire - about as average a county as you could get), and there are about 40 B roads in that, many of them shared with neighbouring counties. If every county has about 40 B roads, then you're looking at around 2,000 B roads. Let's face it, using the figures that Sdedeo uses above, there would be a total of about 9000 roads in the UK in total, and that includes motorways, A roads, B roads, undesignated roads and urban/suburban roads. Grutness...wha? 09:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Follow-p to my previous comment - I've had a good look around on the web, and amazingly there doesn't seem to be a list of B-roads on the web anywhere, so if we had one it would be unique. Reading between the (double-yellow) lines on several of the sites, my estimate of 2000 looks to be about right (oh, and the three-digit B roads used to be A roads, but had their designation changed). Grutness...wha? 10:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • A list of B roads? You mean ... a ... map? ;) Proto t c 10:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • If you think a list is a map, remind me never to ask you to write an atlas! Have a look at New Zealand State Highway network, which I mentioned above. This is what is known as a list - they're quite useful things, I believe. And they don't look much like maps :). Grutness...wha? 12:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • As Pilatus says just below, there is already such a list. It lists the significant A roads in the UK; this list is a rough equivalent to the New Zealand State Highway network list. B-roads, on the other hand, are minor, minor roads. They are not encyclopedic. Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide, and even a list of B-roads would be dumb (a list of 2000 minor roads is just plain crazy). Plus, Northants is a relatively non-urban county. Urban counties and boroughs, such as London, Greater Manchester, the West Midlands etc etc would have far, far more than 40 B-roads. I still think the tally would be way higher than 2,000. Proto t c 12:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The list of A-roads at Road numbering scheme in Great Britain is the equivalent of the list at New Zealand State Highways, as far as the importance of the roads goes. But a list of B-roads? Those are just too obscure! Pilatus 12:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • See , even the Department of Transport doesn't have a list of all B roads! the wub "?/!" 15:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
          • But they know about approx. 2700. Gazpacho
  • I would agree that there's not more than 9,000 designated roads. But there'd be a good 50,000 undesignated (lanes, suburban streets etc). Maybe more than that (there's probably 10,000 roads in London alone, someone check an A to Z). Proto t c 09:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Additionally, does anyone feel like going through all the A road articles and removing the redlinks to various B roads, to stop them being created / recreated? Proto t c 10:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• May I intervene to point out that British road-numbering is an on-going process and that it is entirely possible for a former trunk road (that is a low-number A road) to end up as a B-road if/when a newer throughroute is designed and built, and the A number is reassigned to it. Thus I feel sure that there are parts of the old Great North Road (formerly the A1, and one of the oldest road routes (as opposed to trackways) in the island) which now fall under a B designation, because by-passes have been accorded the A nomenclature. --Simon Cursitor 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • see my "Follow-p"(sic) above. Grutness...wha? 12:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been on sections of Route 66 that have reverted to local roads, and I wouldn't consider them encyclopedic as such. An article about a major road can cover its history. Gazpacho 03:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Does anyone happen to know (or know how I could figure it out for us) where in the AASHTO functional classification scheme these B-roads would fall if they were in the United States? -The Literate Engineer 21:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what an "AASHTO functional classification scheme" is, I'm afraid, but this is one take on it from http://www.cbrd.co.uk/roadsfaq/#2

2.1 How are the roads classified?

There are three different classifications: motorways, A-roads and B-roads. Motorways are grade-separated expressways and have 1, 2 or 3 digit numbers prefixed with 'M'. A-roads are other major routes; they vary from motorway-standard to narrow local roads, and have 1, 2, 3 or 4 digit numbers prefixed with 'A'. B-roads are local routes and have 3 or 4 digit numbers prefixed with 'B'.

I'll try to find out more of an "official" classification Tonywalton 00:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The AASHTO functional classification scheme categorizes roadways according to an urban/rural split and then their function (measured primarily by volume) into groupings such as local roads, collectors, minor arterials, and major arterials. It's used by highway engineers in the U.S.; if I could figure out where in it most B-roads fall, it would help me since nothing short of an urban minor arterial, at a minimum, is likely to deserve an article, as far as U.S. roads go. The Literate Engineer 01:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In Britain, urban areas are as a rule more densely built that in the US, so the urban/rural dichotomy is quite meaningless there. Traffic is carried by A-roads; B-roads are minor side roads. Do take a look at the B5405 picture on this page, it's quite representative. Pilatus 10:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The picture is clearly of a rural road. Rural roads are generally not interesting. Secretlondon 14:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As the US has 10 times the number of roads compared to the UK (by mileage), I don't think most of the B-roads in the UK would even warrant a numeric designation in the US. The majority of them are either small country lanes, sometimes not even wide enough for two cars to pass, or short connecting roads between a village / small town and a slightly larger road. Virtually none ofthem would be more than one lane in either direction. I don't know if any of that info helps. Proto t c 22:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

B roads in cities are different from B roads in rural areas I think. Random country roads are not interesting. Regent Street is interesting. 90%+ of B roads will be of no interest. A blanket policy may lead to us losing the 10% that are of interest. Secretlondon 14:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Regent Street is listed under Regent Street, not under B-something-or-other. The Wub said it above: any notable B-road, especially an urban road, will have its proper name that it's known for. 213.78.108.33 18:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Pilatus 18:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• I just thought of something. Given that the degree of centralization in the United Kingdom is greater than in the United States, does being "numbered at the national level" as mentioned up above in the keep arguments have as much import as it does with the U.S. national highway system? The Literate Engineer 20:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think any road numbered at the state level in the U.S. should be fine, except for several states that number every rural road, even dead ends and streets in residential developments. In those cases they are on a lower level, below primary state roads. C (and D?) roads in the UK would be on that level, and I agree that those are unnecessary. --SPUI (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oddly 'C' roads might be more notable. A 'C' classification is just a sort of internal numbering scheme, used by local authorities and so on for things like "we're closing such-and-such road for resurfacing". A 'C' number shouldn't appear on road signs but occasionally, perhaps due to clerical error, does: http://www.cbrd.co.uk/c-roads/. Whether the sighting of a C road on a road sign is notable, as opposed to "of passing interest", is debatable, I suppose. If it came to a VfD on a verifiably-sighted C road I'd probably vote for 'keep'. We don't nationally go down to "D" roads though the classification is sometimes used internally by local authorities; in US terms these would probably be called "the front yard". Some local authorities also have a rather oxymoronic class of "U" ("unclassified") roads. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Question: If a road article contained information that would never be included on a map, would people be less inclined to delete it? For instance, information about the road's history as a road, or history of the number designation, or the road's role in local affair (facilitating the development of region X). - Visviva 03:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

That's basically "keep the notable ones", isn't it? Tonywalton 15:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Any road that is old enough to have had a lasting impact will have an old name assosiated with it (like the Fosse Way). Newer B Roads are super unlikley to have anything more than marginal impacts on local history. Sabine's Sunbird 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally I'm in the "delete" camp, on the grounds that if a B road is somehow notable it will be notable for something else, not as a B road per se. If it's notable as Oxford Street, it's Oxford Street that's notable, not the B6375 (yes, I made that number up). If it's notable for being the site of the Penge Bungalow Murders it's the murders that are notable, not the B268. If it's notable for being the first road made by some new road-building technique then similarly. I can see a very weak case for a redirect in very occasional cases, but honestly, who would look up "B268" when they wanted to find "Penge Bungalow Murders"? Tonywalton 17:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• 10,000 roads? Piddling. Let's keep every one that gets a reasonable stub. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what do you mean with "reasonable"? That is actually the point and is what we are trying to get a consensus about. Pilatus 22:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

And is it the argument that's piddling or the roads? Please be a little clearer Tonywalton  | Talk 23:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Problem with the design of this discussion

This is titled as a consensus page, but really that isn't what's going to happen. A number of people will take one view, a number of people will take another, they've got their own little designated areas into which to put their opinions, and so already it's turned into a poll. You can't make consensus with a poll--they're only useful for detecting if a consensus does not exist (and clearly it doesn't). I suggest we start again and instead of turning it into a poll we just discuss what problems, if any, are caused by the current state of affairs, and how such problems, should they exist, would best be solved. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)