Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPUI (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 31 March 2007 (→Interstate 238). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:10, 31 March 2007 by SPUI (talk | contribs) (→Interstate 238)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]
Archive

Archives

1 2 3

Template:3di

Template:3di (the 3di spur navboxes) may appear broken for a short time, as the changes to the template proposed and agreed on long ago are in the process of being implemented. Your patience is appreciated. --TMF 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know and finally taking care of that. -- NORTH 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think I got all of the 3di templates updated, so we should be good to go. --TMF 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

Hello Fellow Wikipedians!
I have enjoyed my time editing here on Misplaced Pages but I feel it is time to move on. I have done cleanup on some pages and other edits here but I feel it is time to start my own website for roads, I will post the link when it goes live. I have removed a chunck of articles from my watchlist and will begin to make a steady transition out. My subsequent edits will be more for matience and/or minor information changes. I have no hard feelings towards this project but I feel its time to move on. I am not leaving Misplaced Pages, just this project as it would not be appropriate for me to do this in addition to my future website. Thank you all for the wonderful time I had here! If there is anything you all want help with or want my opinion on, just let me know!
All the best!
Jgcarter 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
PS- You can help me out by using my website for citations!

Interstate 14 and Interstate 3

Would anyone have any objections to moving the article to "14th Amendment Highway"? Right from the FHWA , there's no future I-14 corridor designation yet, even here on that map. I think it would be better as 14th Amendment Highway for now. --MPD 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking around some more, I-3 is in the same position as I-14. So also moving Interstate 3 to "Third Infantry Division Highway" could be in order, because neither of them have been designated as future Interstate corridors. --MPD 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I-14 is the common name: --NE2 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair though, of "Interstate 14" search, on the first page, only three of those are about the Interstate 14 we're referring to, two are about an already existing Interstate 14 in California which isn't correct, and the rest are about movie theatres (Regal Interstate 14) or mistakes (...interstate. 14...). On the second page, only three again are about Interstate 14. That's not to say how many of the articles are duplicates of other articles.
Even so, I'm not saying it's not a common name (there's the "Stop I-3" group), I'm just saying it's speculative and not official. I don't mind leaving them as is; just a thought though that it would be a better name for the article because of the speculation all around on the numbering of the highway. --MPD 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that, but "14th Amendment Highway" only gives three relevant results total, and one also uses "I-14". People are actually calling it I-14, not the "14th Amendment Highway". --NE2 18:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, keep the current titles, for consistency reasons as well.  V60 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think consistency is a valid reason, since these aren't Interstates. But "Interstate 14" is the name people are using. --NE2 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was meaning. Obviously people aren't really referring to US 6 as "Grand Army of the Republic Highway" that much, and it's the same case with I-14 and 3.  V60 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer retaining the common names and having the other names you mention redirecting to the pages. --Mhking 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 238

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is ridiculous. Discuss it here or on Talk:Interstate 238 but don't have a bloody vote. --SPUI (T - C) 23:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been moved from Talk:Interstate 238.

Given this runs between a 580 and an 880, and was assigned 238 because CalTrans did not have space in the x80 range, and is generally considered to be anomalously numbered contrary to the usual rules, that logically would suggest its de facto parent would be I-80, no? Chris cheese whine 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have a parent defacto or otherwise. True 80 would have been its parent in a perfect world, but it's well documented from many sources that it technically doesn't have an existing parent until an I-38 comes about. Gateman1997 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Those are (in order), 404, 404, a personal home page, and 404. You can't argue that it doesn't have a parent purely based on its number. The statements from AASHTO and CalTrans suggest with very little doubt that it is part of the x80 family. Chris cheese whine 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the dead links. All 4 support my position on the matter. Also I'd like to see any evidence you have that says explicitly that AASHTO or Caltrans consider it a child of 80. I can find no such evidence. Gateman1997 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've also found this on the Caltrans site. . You'll notice that Caltrans links to at least one site, AA Roads from link 1, that supports my view. Gateman1997 09:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
RTFA. Chris cheese whine 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
238 is a family of its own. It is not related to I-80. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
A fine opinion, but what definitive source do you have to support this viewpoint. AASHTO and Caltrans are pretty definitive. -- KelleyCook 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And the links are where? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't make me take screenshots. RTFA. Chris cheese whine 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The source SPUI gave does not support your view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In much the same way that my locak bus timetable doesn't support that view. The source above is a list, and gives no indication of parentage. Chris cheese whine 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So where are your sources? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The quotes in the article beg to differ. AASHTO > you. Chris cheese whine 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I just re-read the above comments. AARoads is a site run by a couple of roadgeeks. Why are they apparently a greater authority than the memos from the California DOT and AASHTO on the page? Chris cheese whine 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
They wouldn't be if AASHTO and Caltrans actually had a position on the matter but I can't find any such position beyond AASHTO objecting to the numbering because it violates the numbering system (because 238 isn't a child of 80), and Caltrans not even acknowledging it being an interstate on many of their lists and still referring to it as SR 238 including its exit numbering on CAL NEXUS. However AARoads is provided as BY CALTRANS as a reliable source of information. I'd like to see this evidence you claim to have that AASHTO and Caltrans consider it a child of 80. Because the 238 article shows that the major objection AASHTO had to Caltrans numbering it that way was that 238 is NOT a child of 80, which is why they suggested it be numbered as an 80 child. Gateman1997 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset) To address your non-points:
AASHTO objecting to the numbering because it violates the numbering system (because 238 isn't a child of 80). No, their objection actually suggests the exact opposite, that it is a child of 80 (hence them suggesting alternatives to give it an x80 designation).
However AARoads is provided as BY CALTRANS as a reliable source of information. No, it is provided by a pair of road enthusiasts, and therefore not a reliable source of information.
I'd like to see this evidence you claim to have that AASHTO and Caltrans consider it a child of 80. IT'S IN THE ARTICLE. AASHTO suggest an x80 numbering, therefore they believe it is an auxiliary to 80. CalTrans say "We'd like to, but can't", therefore evidently they also believed it to be an auxiliary to 80. Then there's the insignificant fact of its endpoints being on 580 and 880. All the reliable evidence points to it being part of the x80 family. Saying that it isn't purely on the basis of the number is like saying a woman is not related to her parents because she married and took her husband's name. It's utter nonsense. Chris cheese whine 19:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
All AASHTO implies there is that is SHOULD have been a child of 80. They objected to the numbering because by using 238 it isn't a child of 80 and thus violates the numbering scheme. Gateman1997 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it implies that it IS a child of 80, and SHOULD have been numbered x80. Chris cheese whine 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You're making a jump of logic that's just not there. They would not have objected if it were actually a child of 80. However because it isn't they objected. But if you have ANY evidence other then RTFA please provide it. I've given at least one Caltrans endorsed link that supports my view and 3 roadgeek ones that also do. Gateman1997 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed, and the wrong way around. They objected because the proposed number did not fit. They saw it as a child of 80, wanted it to have an x80 number, and suggested alternative solutions that would have given it an x80 number. It is logically impossible to reach your conclusion from the statement on this page. Chris cheese whine 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is by far the worst thing I've seen since WP:SRNC. It's a poll started by one person, clearly originally written to support his views, and still being edited to support his views, with options being struck through despite his own rules: "Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any. There's faulty logic on both sides. One is trying to define I-238 as not a member of the I-80 family solely by its number – the sources being used to do so are somewhat questionable, but it is supported by AASHTO's numbering rules. The other side (which as the "poll" below shows is comprised of one person) is trying to define it as a member based solely on its termini, which is somewhat supported by AASHTO's quotes, but by this logic Interstate 287 would be a member of the I-95 family.

The article as it's written right now does not explicitly state that I-238 is not a member of the I-80 family. Anything added to the article stating that it is (or isn't) would need to be sourced (since it's obviously questionable). The claim that IT'S IN THE ARTICLE isn't enough; that would be an original research leap of faith. -- NORTH 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what I said above, this whole discussion is moot. Unless there's a source out there that explicitly states that I-238 is a child of I-80 – or a non-roadgeek site that says that it isn't – anything we derive here is going to be original research. It's the perfect example of ]. On either side, look how many logical hoops we have to jump through to "prove" our case. (I use quotes because at this point I'm fairly sure neither side will be able to convince the other.) No good will come of this. -- NORTH 22:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts

m:Polls are evil, but I think it's important that we stop and ensure that we are all on the same page, and looking at the same reality here, so let's step back, ignore each other's opinions, and examine the substantive facts of the matter. Numbered statements in this section should be simple statements, or logical extensions thereof. Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any. Any combination of facts must state its derivation. If you oppose any suggested interpretation, you must state why you oppose. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Location

1. The endpoints of the road are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

1.1. The endpoints of the stretch of road documented in this article are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

1.2. The endpoints of the stretch of road documented in this article are junctions with what are now I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

Adopted - no further comment on this particular one. Enough arguing over technicalities, we know which 2-mile piece of road we're looking at. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2. The numbering of I-238 is non-standard.

Adopted - clear agreement on this one. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Following (2), the number I-238 would imply a spur of I-38, which does not exist.

Adopted Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

4. The road is a little over 2 miles long.

Adopted - as with 1.2, it's clear which stretch of road we're dealing with. Chris cheese whine 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Following (1) and (4), the road is part of the I-80 system.

Rejected Chris cheese whine 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

6. Although I-238 may function as a spur of I-80 (functionally), it is not legislatively a spur of I-80. As Misplaced Pages is based on fact not opinion, I-238 should not be treated as a spur of I-80 on Misplaced Pages.

Rejected - not a well-formed proposal. Break the first sentence up into a logical sequence, and lose the second sentence altogether. Chris cheese whine 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
How can you "reject". Gateman1997 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Because, asd I've said three times now, it is not a well-formed finding of fact. Chris cheese whine 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify this, the two parts of the first sentence need to be proposed independently. One is proposed as #7 below, and the second makes a jump without identifying its premises. The second sentence is pure opinion, and does not follow from the premises given. Chris cheese whine 22:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

7. From (1.2), I-238 functions as part of the I-80 network.

8. As in the cases of I-105 and I-370, an Interstate route does not need to meet its parent directly

  • Support - from the discussion above. Chris cheese whine 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, this is true, but it would support I-38 as parent of 238 then since 238 doesn't have to meet its parent. Gateman1997 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The second sentence is making a jump, and again prejudging the issue at hand, but not relevant to whether or not we consider this particular statement to be true. Is this making it clearer as to what I'm trying to achieve here? Chris cheese whine 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You've struck out and changed so many of your statements above and below so far that I'm having trouble remembering what it was you were trying to prove. Joking of course. But to he honest, your tweaking your statements isn't changing the fact we get what you're trying to say, and 4 people have now rejected your supposition. Per WP:CON you may have to live with that. Gateman1997 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

9. I-238 meets no other Interstate highways than I-580 and I-880

Communication

1. CalTrans proposed the number 238 based on, amongst other factors, the previous designation of the road as CA-238.

Adopted Chris cheese whine 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

2. AASHTO initially objected to the number.

2.1. AASHTO initially expressed tacit objection to the number.

2.2. AASHTO expressed tacit objection to the number.

3. AASHTO suggested alternative options which would have numbered the road in the I-x80 series.

4. Following (2)(2.1) and (3), AASHTO's intention was to number it I-x80.

5. Following (4), AASHTO believed the road to be part of the I-80 system.

  • Support - otherwise they would not have suggested such numbering in the first place. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose AASHTO's numbering rules apply to every single Interstate—no exceptions.  V60 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per their suggestion that it be renamed to an X80 after the approval of 238. They approved it but obviously had reservations because the non standard numbering put it outside the X80 family. Gateman1997 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "...the non standard numbering put it outside the X80 family". That isn't backed up anywhere, and is part of the reason we're discussing this in the first place. Chris cheese whine 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually as I've pointed out it is backed up in multiple places by "roadgeeks" as you term them. While they're not the most authoritative sources I'll grant you, however AA Roads, which supports my position, is linked to directly from Caltrans which is definitely an authoritative source on California Highways. Gateman1997 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • AA Roads is still a hobbyist site, and not a reliable or authoritative source by any definition, regardless of who links to it. Chris cheese whine 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I would beg to differ. A large public entity linking to a site is tacit approval of its content IMHO. Gateman1997 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Please see WP:RS. I don't see "some government person decided to link to them" in the list of criteria. Chris cheese whine 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Please provide a reliable source that EXPLICITLY states what you're suggesting is fact. Saying RTFA doesn't give us any evidence to support you. I've provided at lease partially reliable sources, lets see you do the same. I don't think you can. I've searched AASHTO's site and found nothing. In the absence of that evidence we'll have to build a consensus, one you keep striking out. Gateman1997 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
                • You are misunderstanding the concepts of "reliable sources" and "consensus". A source is reliable, or it isn't. It's not "partially reliable". The original memos are reliable sources, and if you ask nicely, I'm sure CalTrans or AASHTO would find copies of them for you. Chris cheese whine 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • The memos do not say I-238 is a child of I-80, or a member of the I-80 family. Many interstates had different planning numbers originally. On of the I-79 spurs in Pittsburgh was originally given an x76 number (or vice versa). An x95 number was originally considered for I-676 (actually present I-76). -- NORTH 22:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Infoboxes for Interstate spurs and loops

See WT:USRD#Infoboxes for Interstate spurs and loops. --TMF 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)