Talk:Maryland Route 210

U.S. Roads: State highways / Maryland Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Maryland
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Stages of construction[edit]

It would be interesting to supply dates for when the road was improved. It was widened to 4 lanes in stages (dates approximate - need source):

initially a few miles from both ends in early 1960s (before 1964). On the south end, only to the town limits of Indian Head. On the north, as part of the construction of the Capitol Beltway (probably 1962 or 1963).

extended on both ends during the late 1960s (to the Charles County line on the south, and to Old Fort Road on the north).

sometime after the late 1970s, it was widened the remaining 10-15 miles.

Tedickey (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

four-lanes in 1945?[edit]

Route 210 was two-lanes only from Oxon Hill to Indian Head in 1960 (I recall the beginning of the widening, though the section past Eastover was wider at some earlier date, that's north of Oxon Hill). Citing four lanes in the 1940s doesn't look correct. TEDickey (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the 1945 USGS Anacostia quadrangle map, Indian Head Highway is marked as 4 lanes on the segment from Livingston Road near the DC line south to Livingston Road at Kerby Hill Road. You can search for that map here: http://cida.usgs.gov/hqsp/apex/f?p=262:1:2791560002527406::NO:RP. I recognize maps are not always correct, but I also am reluctant to remove a piece of information based on original research from 50 years ago. V C 23:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm - referring to first-hand observation as WP:OR is misplaced (recollection can be faulty, of course). Your url doesn't work here with Safari or Firefox - brings me to a search page, and clicking on "Search" with the given map name gives no results. TEDickey (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong, but there is virtually no way for anyone else to confirm your observation. Select the state and the name of the map before you hit search instead of using the default in the Map Name field. V C 02:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, got this url, and "No data available to match this search criteria". I'd like to look at the map, of course TEDickey (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just put Anacostia in the Map Name field? V C 12:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - your comment above referred to it as the "1945 USGS Anacostia quadrangle map". Typing in Anacostia for the map-name (and Maryland for the state) gives 7 choices with different dates; however the two for 1945 are east of the area of interest (does not show any portion of 210). What is the map-name that you used? TEDickey (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map for 1951 shows a fragment of 210 on the left edge, with the section past Eastover as wide, but as I noted before, the wide part did not extend up the hill toward Oxon Hill Road. Part of the "wide" section is actually a road which paralleled 210 going perhaps halfway up the hill; the map shows it dead-ending (which I also recall, having explored that some time ago). TEDickey (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the map legend, the part that could be 4-lanes (based on color) is only the section north of the remerge with Livingston Road at the bottom of the hill, near Glassmanor. TEDickey (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1956 maps do not identify 4-lane roads in the legend, merely using red for "heavy duty". TEDickey (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have to cite our sources. We cannot use original research; please also see WP:V and WP:RS. --Rs chen 7754 03:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is rude. I am citing the same source, describing what's on the source. The editor has made a statement which does not appear to be correct, both for the original comment which I made, as well as having inspected the source. TEDickey (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming good faith, trying to help you find a resource, even though I know you have been on Wikipedia a long time so you are probably quite adept at searching for resources. I would expect someone as experienced as you to know "1945 USGS Anacostia quadrangle map" does not mean you use that search term verbatim, but I decided to be patient and not assume. However, your access of the 1951 and 1956 maps shows you know what you are doing. I took another look and saw there are two 1945 Anacostia maps listed. One of them (the one with Woodland Tint = Y) shows the segment of the highway in question and one does not. I am having trouble believing that you missed seeing a straight red line with a "4 LANES" label on one of the 1945 maps, given your demonstrated attention to detail on the more recent maps. V C 15:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about good faith seem to be a poor way to discuss things. Let's not. I have comments to make, but will keep to the actual discussion. What I saw on the "7" map last night was what appeared to be (and still does) a sketch of a route. It lacks the dark lines shown bordering other highways in the map. If you've used USGS maps for navigation, you are certainly aware of an eccentricity regarding roads: they generally are accurate regarding the location, but are vague about other details, such as the quality of the road. As I noted, the 1951 and 1956 maps do not corroborate your interpretation of the 1947 map (unless you can point out some specific detail on those which correlates with the "4 lanes" note next to the unlabeled highway). TEDickey (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "four-lane" from the sentence in question and removed the dubious tag. V C 01:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks TEDickey (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]