Talk:Interstate 75 in Florida/Archive 1

Location questions

I figured I would just discuss this here. I have a few questions regarding the locations you added.

Exit 293 - Blanton: it appears that Blanton is well east of the interchange and the town of Jessamine is located between Blanton and the interchange.

Exit 435 - Springville: Google Maps has it just north of the I-10 interchange, but when I go to aerial there isn't anything there, I don't any houses, businesses of any kind. Perhaps Google has the label in the wrong place? What maps are you using, any of them online? Not asking to prove you wrong or anything, I am just curious for editing future lists, so I don't step on any toes or anything. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I make some recommendations?

• Florida State Road Atlas, published by American Map Company(0875304508)
• Florida Road Atlas, published by Rand Mcnally and Company(9780528859274).
• Street atlas of Pasco County, Florida, published by MapSource(ISBN # Unknown).

There are some others, but I forgot what they were. ----DanTD (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My next question is, does FDOT know that Pasco exists? Went to street view on Google maps to actually look at the roadways, from I-75, there is no mention of Pasco at all, the guide signs only mention San Antonio, Dade City and New Port Richey. When you go onto the exit at the bottom of the ramp, Pasco isn't mentioned there either, only Dade City, San Antonio, Saint Leo University and Pasco-Hernando Community College (which is referencing Pasco County not the town) on the northbound ramp and San Antonio, Saint Leo University, Dade City and New Port Richey on the southbound ramp. My final check was to go up and down SR 52 looking for a sign denoting that you are now in Pasco like the typcial sign you see posted when you enter a town showing the town name and population, I couldn't find one from either direction. For all intensive purposes, Pasco doesn't even exist to the travelling public, unless they had a map. There is nothing on the ground to tell them that they are in Pasco. Just did a zip code check for Pasco, FL, nothing comes back. I then looked for a mailing address for one of the gas stations at the interchange (which doesn't necessarily even tell you what town you are in anyways, just the town with the nearest post office) and it comes back with a Dade City address, well off of the Interstate. So at best, someone travelling through would think they are in Dade City. You mentioned that you wouldn't mention every water crossing as some are obviously not worth mentioning, why doesn't this same logic carry over. To me, mentioning Pasco is the equivalent to listing a bridge over a creek. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Rand McNally's Central Florida road map is among those that describes that location as Pasco, along with three of the others I've mentioned. Irrelevant to I-75, MapSource's Street atlas of Pasco County, Florida also contains the towns of Gower's Corner, and Fivay Junction, the former of which are considered to be part of Land O'Lakes according to FDOT, who BTW doesn't recognize either of the three towns. You're right about Springville. It's pretty barren other than the I-10/I-75 intercnange. But besides Google Maps, American Map Co's. Florida State Road Atlas recognizes it, as well as the nearby "Poucher's Corner" in Hamilton County. ----DanTD (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the rough population of these towns? --Holderca1 ^talk 20:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I suspect they may be included in the populations of town nearer to them. I've got another tip for you; Exit 341 is also near the Don Garlits Museum of Drag Racing which is erroneously addressed as being in Ocala. Of course, a map of the area and the fact that I've actually seen the museum from I-75 is enough evidence to prove that it's not in Ocala, but is in fact in Marion Oaks. I see that you've added "citations needed" tags to those towns. Would you mind if I used some of the sources I've mentioned here? I'll even convert Blanton to Jessamine, which I saw as being part of Blanton anyway. Also, the western outskirts of Ridge Manor, Florida is considered "Ridge Manor West."----DanTD (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup?

I am removing the cleanup tag because there is no comment on what needs further cleanup. If you restore the cleanup tag, please make some notes here on what needs work. RJFJR (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:USRD/STDS. --Rschen7754 03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I"ve done some cleaning up on the exit list, but I have a one item I haven't changed. For the suffixed exits, like "6A-B", we don't list them that way normally if they're part of the same interchange. Instead, we'd list just the number, "6", in the exit column and then include a note that explains how the split is marked in the Notes column. That not would be something like, "Signed as exits 6A (east) and 6B (west)" or whatever. If the suffixes are only for one direction of the freeway, "Sign as exits 6A (east) and 6B (west) northbound" or whatever the case might be. I didn't change anything dealing with those, but I did insert some {{nowrap}} templates around a few of those suffixed exit numbers to prevent them from wrapping.

Another thing that's needed is probably a quick note above the table to clarify the whole old vs. new exit numbers, or remove the old numbers completely. Imzadi 1979 → 21:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the old exit numbers should be kept, and that's with all highways. You're going to find users and editors basing what they know about these roads on exit numbers from 20-odd years ago. ----DanTD (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Now, read what I said: the table needs some clarification about the changeover, or the old number column needs to be removed. As it is, leaving them there with no explanation is more confusing than removing them could be. That said, Fredddie (talk · contribs) started a discussion independently over at WT:USRD#Old/New exit numbers about this sort of situation. My position there is clear: the numbers should be removed when: a) the DOT removes the signage indicating the old numbers, b) when the official state map released to the public no longer lists both numbers, or c) five years, whichever one of these (a–c) that is soonest. Until the project reaches consensus over a timeframe though, this article still needs to clarify the why there are two sets of exit numbers in the table as well as the when or the duplication is confusing to readers. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen billboards on I-75 that still have the old exit numbers. So you still have people who forgot to adjust to these changes. The one thing I don't think we should have though is the truck weigh stations, inspection stations, and rest areas added to the exit list, unless they were part of the interchange like Northbound Exit 1 on Interstate 95 in Georgia. I like your idea for partially suffixed interchanges, though. ----DanTD (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the Ramada Inn in Marquette, Michigan, still has billboards that refer motorists to follow BUS US 41 even though that designation was decommissioned in 2005. Our articles are not travel guides, nor collections of trivia. The issue with the advertising situation isn't with the exit numbers: it's with businesses that haven't updated their marketing materials to reflect reality. Those old numbers have not been in official use in almost a decade, and they should not be in our articles anymore. If you want, include a link to Florida's New Interstate Exit Numbers for I-75 in the External links page, but they no longer need to be in our article, period.

To address your other comments, the list of truck weigh stations, etc, can be added to the exit list, if the locations are formatted as separate entries like the two toll plazas. Unless your object is not about how RJFJR (talk · contribs) formatted/included them, but that he included them at all. That's two separate things, but I think that if they were merged into the table with a different formatting, you'd agree that merging them into a single table would work just fine. As for the suffixed exits, that's my idea. That's what the Manual of Style says to do. We have an entire page at MOS:RJL called the "Road junction list" section of the MOS, and MOS:RJL says to do it that way. It also says to format these non-junction entries, and others like lakes, major bridges, etc, like the two toll plaza listings in this article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the FDOT link looks like a good idea. We can even use it as a reference to the changeover to mileage-based exit numbers. At the same time we should also consider archiving the link in case FDOT dissolves it. As for the weigh stations and rest areas and such, I wouldn't mind adding them in the same manner as the toll plazas. However, wasn't that eliminated for the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway (Maryland) article? ----DanTD (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't know, but U.S. Route 491, a featured article that was just on the Main Page for July 4 has a similar entry in its junction list. Imzadi 1979 → 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just about done with the exit list table rebuild. It has been converted to templates, and I moved the weigh stations over. Now, the rest areas stuff should be expanded with generalized information. Tell the reader what services that a motorist can expect to find there in generalized terms. The exit list table will list the rest area locations exactly, so the Services section just needs the generalized stuff. The last task will be for someone with localized knowledge to pull the "A-B"s and write the appropriate notes. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted a change DanTD made to the end of the junction list for a few reasons:

1. The boldface text formatting is contrary to both MOS:BOLD and MOS:RJL
2. His addition lost the ability to display the milepost at the state line. That number would correspond to the length of I-75 in the state of Florida. All information in the lead of the article, which would include the length, should be repeated somewhere in the body of the article. This is one of the easiest ways to ensure that the length appears outside of the lead.
3. The county in Georgia on the other side of the state line is not really all that important in an article on the Florida portion of I-75.

If this were an article on a road in Michigan, I'd actually have continued the county to the bottom, inserted the name of the city or township adjacent to the Michigan side of the border at that location, inserted the milepost, used the {{jct}} for the continuation in the other state as the junction with the direction and used the state line information as the notes. Since Florida has unincorporated land, I used the state line as the location and a colspan for the continuation information. If someone can insert all of the missing mile post numbers into the table, we should be good to go on this once the notes are copy edited or updated as needed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So that element is strictly a Michigan thing? That's a pretty dumb thing to do. Plus that change in the border betwwen Florida and Georgia ia a big deal, which make the bolding quite appropriate. ----DanTD (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

When you use "!" to start a table cell, as you did, it does three things: bolds the text on the darker background, centers the text and uses the code that says that the cell is a header for the table. Screen readers and other adaptive technology will interpret that formatting much differently. To use that coding outside of the top of the table and a few other select items is a violation of the MOS. Now, that's been misused for years, so many articles still do it wrong, but that's not a reason for this article, which has been recently overhauled, to do it wrong.

Read MOS:BOLD and you'll see that boldface text is limited to only a few cases basically: the subject/name of the article on first usage in the lead and defined terms in dictionary-style definition lists. In fact, MOS:RJL was updated to prohibit boldface text outside of the table headers on junction/exit lists last year so it doesn't conflict with MOS:BOLD.

Last, re-reead what I said. For a Michigan article, I'd have formatted the state-line row a little differently only because all locations in Michigan can be placed not only in a county like Florida, but also in a city/village/township as well. I've sent numerous (read over 100) articles through GAN and several (read: eight) articles through FAC, including U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, and this formatting has never been questioned on the articles about highways that meet the state lines. Since there's no Florida city where I-75 crosses the border, I used the generic location of "Florida–Georgia state line" as a location spanning the county and location columns and the continuation information as the "crossing", but we could have easily used Hamilton County, blank location with the crossing information. Imzadi 1979 → 18:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To do list

What specifically needs to get done to have this article cleaned-up; not in terms of WP:USRD/STDS, which is not a Wikipedia policy on Manual of Style, but strictly in terms of WP:MOS? This article is one of the two oldest articles marked for cleanup on Wikipedia. If something beyond general cleanup is needed, perhaps a more specific template can be added from this list. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 13:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:USRD/STDS is how to apply good writing and MOS compliance to articles on US highways like this one. As such, it's recommended that articles follow its advice. Specifically, the article needs:

1. An expanded lead section that will act as a proper summary of the article and the subject.
2. The "Route description" section needs additional citations (usually maps) to verify the course of the highway in the state
3. The entire "Lane configurations" needs to be removed and integrated into the rest of the RD section. The various transition points should be noted in the prose south-to-north description of the highway's progression through the state. Compiling a list like that on its own is borderline original research without better referencing. A simple {{google maps}} reference (to the satellite view) for the whole highway used in conjunction with the FDOT map will supply the necessary reference for both the current text of the RD and the changes in lane configuration when integrated into a cohesive prose narrative.
4. The "History" section needs expansion and additional citations.
5. The "Future development" section should be renamed simply "Future" for consistency with WP:USRD/STDS which supplies consistency across all US highway articles.
6. The "Services" section needs a point clarified and references.
7. As for the current references in use, footnote 9 (Robert V. Droz) is technically a self-published source, and its usage needs to be examined for compliance with that policy. Footnote 18 is to a Wikipedian-submitted photograph, and if a better source can be found to replace it, or if the source isn't even needed, it should be removed.

That's what is needed at the present. Imzadi 1979 → 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good recommendations on improving the article. It appears that despite this list and from what I observe in the article that the current cleanup template no longer is warranted as it applies to what is outlined in WP:MOS. The article would likely be better served by Refimporve, Expand, and Intro templates. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 03:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge the article. ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I think Alligator Alley, which covers the east–west part of I-75 should be merged into I-75. –Fredddie™ 04:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose There's enough in Alligator Alley to justify a separate article. Alligator Alley predates I75, and unlike the rest of I75 is a toll road.--Mhockey (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Alligator Alley is a very significant stretch of highway that existed before the Interstate used it; it is unique and should have its own article. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It has enough in the article to keep it the same page.SR11 (talk)
• Oppose There's enough information in the Alligator Alley article to make it a separate article from the Interstate 75 in Florida article. There's history provided about the formation of the Alley and how its location got chosen. This history wouldn't really stand out in the main article about I-75 in Florida. ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FDOT Maps of Suwannee & Hamilton Counties may be dated

I was examining Google Maps for info on another road in the vicinity of I-75 in Hamilton County, and I found that the rest area info north of I-10, as shown on the official FDOT maps may be out of date. The Hamilton County Rest Area is closed, I barely see any sign of the Suwannee County Rest Area, and the Truck Weigh Stations and State inspection stations seem to have switched places. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge or Redirect for Florida State Road 93

Florida State Roads 93 and 93A only apply to Interstate 75 and it's auxiliary route (I-295) in Tampa, so I think the page Florida State Road 93 should be redirected to Interstate 75 in Florida, much like how Florida State Road 93A already is. What are your thoughts? BryanWeather (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure this was redirected before. In principal I'd have to agree with you. There is however the issue of the road being a partial hidden route of Interstate 275 (Florida). -------User:DanTD (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge 2013

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was proposed a couple of sections up in 2011, but I don't see much input from the USRD regulars, so I'm going to assume it's because the project wasn't notified of the discussion. The reason why this merge makes more sense than the current two-article setup is because as the articles are expanded, there is going to be significant duplication of content between them. The route description of I-75 is going to contain a description of the Alligator Alley section, and the exit list is going to be an exact duplicate of a section of I-75's exit list. The history and tolling information is going to also have to be covered in I-75 as well.

Many of the points given as reason for there to be a separate article are flawed:

• Alligator Alley predates I75, and unlike the rest of I75 is a toll road. doesn't explain why predating I-75 necessitates a separate article or why we can't describe the tolls in the I-75 article
• it is unique and should have its own article— doesn't explain how it is unique, or how it should then follow that it needs its own article
• It has enough in the article to keep it the same page— Alligator Alley is only assessed as a start-class article
• There's history provided about the formation of the Alley and how its location got chosen. This history wouldn't really stand out in the main article about I-75 in Florida. All of this information will need to be included in I-75 anyway. It is not established why there's a pressing need for this segment's history to "stand out" somehow.

Therefore, I think the most reasonable action is to merge the pages to avoid unnecessary content and effort duplication. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Pinging editors who participated in the above discussion: @Fredddie:, @Mhockey:, @Washuotaku:, @Route11:, @Douglasr007:. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support—There are three separately named segments of I-75 in Michigan (Detroit–Toledo Freeway/Expressway, Fisher Freeway, Chrysler Freeway), yet all of these are covered in a single article on the entire Interstate in the state. This is for essentially the same reasons that Scott proposes here. In short, the duplication is unnecessary. Imzadi 1979 → 06:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose — This is somewhat of a procedural oppose rather than an oppose on the its own merits. There are several highways in different states in which a subset of the highway has its own article. The first one I thought of was Interstate 44 in Oklahoma; there are separate articles for the constituent Turner Turnpike, Will Rogers Turnpike, and H.E. Bailey Turnpike, all of which exclusively follow I-44. Perhaps we should have a discussion on this concept in general.  VC  22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that in that case the turnpikes are administered by a separate agency (OTA) than the free sections (ODOT). There is a separate Highway Patrol troop dedicated to each turnpike, there are special services provided, and the traffic code treats them differently (by allowing a higher speed limit on toll roads). All of I-75, including Alligator Alley, is administered by FDOT. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Even that shouldn't necessarily prohibit the concept of merging them; Interstate 90 in Illinois now covers all of that state's section of I-90, even the ISTHA- or SCC-maintained segments. The level of redundancies between full articles on Alligator Alley and I-75 in FL warrant merger. Imzadi 1979 → 23:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Support merging Alligator Alley into this article. I will likely start a discussion about similar situations elsewhere.  VC  14:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I started the previous discussion and my feelings toward the merge have not changed. –Fredddie™ 23:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - All of Alligator Alley is part of I-75, so this merge makes sense. Dough4872 03:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per argument above. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So, is this merger going to happen? The consensus seems to be there...  VC  03:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RSW exit

Is it just one exit for Daniels Parkway and RSW? --NE2 23:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No. One exit (128) for RSW and Alico Rd. See RSW directions and Google Maps (embedded in link). Also this news article. AHeneen (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)