Talk:List of freeways in Michigan

(Untitled)
Listing the expressways in Michigan isn't original research. Do we really need this tag?
 * Figuring out which road meets the ambiguous standards of an expressway is original research, unless you have sources from MDOT. --SPUI (T - C) 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like you are completely missing the spirit of the "no original research" rule for the sake of being difficult, which is pretty much your MO throughout Wikipedia.

The stretches in question on M-66, M-52, US-31, and US-223 are surface roads (they have some grade intersections, but some old intersections with minor roads have been closed) with access denied to abutting properties. They are not 2-lane freeways, although some, especially M-52, of them could be upgraded to full freeways.

I have been on all four of the stretches in question and have noticed fences along the highways with the warning "LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY access denied to abutting property except at intersections and interchanges" --Paul from Michigan 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Satellite view feature on Google Maps has helped me trace roads conforming to expressway criteria. Looking at the images will serve as sources to verify the information. The information is mostly from the sharp satellite photos. --Boxstaa (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That might be true but Google Maps doesn't label these roads as freeways or expressways, so what you are doing is OR. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But I kinda figured that since Google Maps provided the information combined with common sense, that to my point of view claims like these would cease to be original research. Therefore I think Google Maps is a common source. --Boxstaa (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If your source doesn't explicitly state the fact you're claiming, you're misusing the source. In other words, if the key to a map, or a map label doesn't give the information you seek, it's not on the map. Google Maps doesn't label roadways as a freeway or an expressway, so you can't use Google Maps to label something as a freeway or expressway.


 * As a follow up, this list needs MAJOR cleanup. Lots of the entries in the list should be removed for OR concerns. There are MOS violations (misuse of bolding for instance) and no in-line references. What is referenced isn't specific for any roadway. There's road jargon in use (twinned). The Interstate section duplicates List of Interstate Highways in Michigan. I could go on and on with other issues, but quality is something this article lacks. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, the list for at-grade expressways was short to begin with. California has lots of at-grade expressways.  Michigan has lots of them too but more need to be mentioned as examples.  Expressways and freeways don't always have names that denote them as such.  So "eyeballing" it is sometimes what I resort to since I have studied the physical criteria for expressways (even 2-lane stretches qualify since there is a term called two-lane expressway (formerly described at a two-lane freeway but the article was renamed since not all examples in the article are a freeway since freeways lack at-grade intersections.).


 * Another endeavor Wikipedians could do is write a blog to double as a "source" to verify the article with. Don't you think that type of venture could work?  Sometimes lists of examples of given criteria can be fun to read. --Boxstaa (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Blogs don't count as a source. You can't used a self-published source. If someone were to use a blog as a source, and get information in that blog wrong, then WP is using inaccurate information. Since blogs aren't fact-checked by others (editors in a publishing house, etc) or have source requirements, they generally are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia. Technically, Chris Bessert's Michigan Highways source also fails the SPS test as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No blogs, no Google maps. Not even sure that this article should exist, as there may be no reliable way to determine the contents of this list. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The strict policies Wikipedia have really take the fun out of contributing to this article :-( --Boxstaa (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, Wikipedia isn't your own sandbox to play around in. We are here to make a professional encyclopedia. If you want to make your own article about this subject, you can start your own web page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)