Talk:Motorway

Definition of motorway
This article has become very confused, especailly as its scope is not properly defined. I have inserted the OECD definition of a motorway into the introductory paragraph, thereby removing the need to discuss what is a motorway, what is a highway, what is an expressway and so on. If this definition is agreed, then agreement should be sought as to what the scope of the article should be, bearing in mind that the scope must be compatible with the OECD definition.

Also, in accepting this definition, we can probably clean out a lot of unneccessary material. Martinvl (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Split
This article is becoming rather confusing as more is added, because of the differences in laws, customs, regulations etc in the different nations that use the word motorway. For instance, in the UK, although undertaking is discouraged in the Highway Code, it is not actually illegal. In NZ the signs are green, in the UK they are blue and so on. Citations and references are difficult because they tend to apply only to one specific country. I suggest we have an article for each nation named Motorways of the United Kingdom, Motorways of New Zealand, Motorways of the Republic of Ireland etc. brought together under the Motorway article. This could mirror the way the Autoroute article works for the autoroutes of France, Switzerland and Quebec. This way specific prohibitions, speed limits, hard shoulder use, etc. can be properly explained without having to couch it in phrases like "in some countries...". Also history, laws, conventions and social and cultural differences can be more comprehensively discussed. What do others think? -- de Facto (talk). 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This suggestion could have merit, but I'd wonder if the similarities outweigh the differences? --Thisisbossi 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's particularly the case with Ireland and the UK - aside from minor differences (how a road is made a motorway, how they're numbered, and the speed limit) motorways in Ireland and the UK are essentially the same concept with exactly the same restrictions and very similar signage. I don't know whether they need to be split, the articles would be very similar and Roads in Ireland and Road signs in the Republic of Ireland deal with the differences anyway. --Rdd 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

speed limits
Nice article, but one comment/correction - contrary to what is claimed, British motorway speed limits (at least for cars) are no higher than those on any other unrestricted dual carriageway (70mph). I didn't edit, since I don't know the situation in Ireland.... Cambyses 06:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, the absolute speed limits here in Ireland are 70mph for motorway, 60mph for National Primary Routes - even if dual-carriageway. (There is some consternation at this). Speed limits will be changing soon to km/h, with slight variations on existing limits, date to be announced sometime in September. All road signs in the country will be updated overnight!!!

I don't know the situation with speed limits in Britain, hence my error. If you can clarify the U.K. situation better, please do. I have amended the phrasing to say "generally" higher than ordinary roads. Also mentioned dual-carriageways being lower speeds in Ireland. Zoney 15:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that the restriction of HGVs is nothing to do with the motorway speed limit but rather to do with EU legislation? The speed limit for HGVs on Motorways is 60mph. Also, the default speed for all dual carriageways is 70mph unless otherwise signed, the same as Motorways. 80.169.52.2 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge flag
I'm not quite sure why the merge flag was put on here (to merge with Freeway as, SFAICT, there are enough different concepts involved that it seems sensible to keep them apart. Freeway is very much a US-only term, 'motorway' however is translated exactly within Europe (autostrad, autobahn, etc)). Disgree with merge therefore --VampWillow 22:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * More Americano-centrism. I've been in the US. None of the various concepts there (freeway, expressway, etc.) entirely co-incide with the British/Irish Motorway. Also the article quite rightly focusses on the British/Irish road classification side of things. Merging? Crazy people. Bah! Zoney 19:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You missed the discussion (all on merge page!) and removal of the merge flag ... I did all the merging and separating out earlier today... I'll remove the bit you added about Europe and put it over into the correct articles if you don't mind. --VampWillow 19:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Inside/outside lanes
So there is apparently inconsistent usage about whether the near-median lanes are the inside or outside. So, I've avoided using that language in this article entirely, to avoid confusion. -- Beland 21:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Not an option, inside and outside lanes are the terms in use. I'll attempt to better introduce them. zoney &#09827; talk 22:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Near-median lanes are always termed "outside" lanes, and the others "inside" lanes. In the US, I believe the situation is reversed (I may be wrong), but this article does not apply to the US. (see Freeway). zoney &#09827; talk 22:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I further clarified, since the first time I read this article, I ended up asking my English friends why on earth they would be required to pass on the shoulder side. Personally, I consider the outside lane to be the one closest to the edge (outside) of the roadway, but apparently some Californians consider it to be the other way around as well.  Given the difference of opinion on this side of the Atlantic, are you sure that everyone in the UK uses the convention indicated?  (Actually, the California driver's handbook says that lanes are officially numbered, lane 1 being the one closest to the median, and that's how the Highway Patrol and traffic reports generally call things, or Nth from the left/right.) -- Beland 05:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Standard in the UK and Ireland, possibly elsewhere too. Non-motorists or the un-informed might not be aware of the distinction of course, so it does need explained well! zoney &#09827; talk 09:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, driving manuals in the UK identify the lane furthest from the central reservation as lane 1, and count up from there. Where traffic is forced onto the hard shoulder, they are on "Lane 0".  Besides that, they are numbered from 1-5 (AFAIK, no motorway actually has more than 5 lanes in any one direction).


 * Article says: In the UK the lanes in a given direction are numbered sequentially from the nearside (left) as lane 1, lane 2, lane 3, etc. Lane 1 is the lane next to the hard shoulder. Not in everyday speech they're not - I'm British, and this is the first I've ever heard of it! On a normal three-lane motorway the lanes are slow/nearside, middle and fast/outside. I've never, ever heard anyone saying "I pulled out into lane 3". 86.136.251.157 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So the inside lane is actually the one near the shoulder and the outside lane is the one near the median, right? It's a little confusing. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also never heard the lanes numbered. However I haven't heard "slow"..."fast" for decades - doesn't that pre-date the introduction of speed limits and subsequent campaigns to stop using the f word? What I have heard, though, is some people saying "inside" for the slow lane (1) and some people saying "inside" for the fast lane (3 or 4) (on the basis that the central reservation is on the inside of the motorway but the hard shoulders are to the outside) whilst other people (most people?) use the terms the other way round. Northernhenge (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard usage amongst Police, Highways Agency etc is "Lane X". In this terminology, lane 1 is the lane furthest from central reservation, counting up towards the central reservation. Widest motorway in the UK is the M25 around Heathrow, 6 lanes in each direction, so that has a "Lane 6". The "inside" and "outside" are standard use in the UK, where inside is left and outside is right. The "inside" comes from the fact that is the direction of the inside of the car from the driver's seat, the outside is the direction of the outside of the car from the driver's seat (inside = left, outside = right). Additionally, we use nearside and offside, where nearside = inside, offside = outside. This final system is the one you will encounter if dealing with a hirecar company, insurance company or garage. Also when reporting damage to a vehicle at a Police station, they will record it using nearside and offside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Feeder routes
I've clipped the following for the moment:
 * Other times, the feeder routes are simply classified with the same number as the main motorway.

I'm not aware of any instances where this is actually the case for something longer than a slip road. The one exception I can think of is the infamous Heathrow spur to the M4 motorway at junction 4, however this doesn't lead inescapably to the motorway - Heathrow Airport is on one side and Hayes is on the other - you could feasibly drive the length of the spur from Hayes to the airport without being forced to join the M4. Chris 01:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I think that's the case I had remembered. If it doesn't join the M4, why is it a motorway? They just wanted to ban bikes from it? What's used however when there's a motorway parallel to a road, with a short connector road joining them? Is that designated as a separate highway? --SPUI (talk) 00:25, 4 Jan 2003 (UTC)


 * There are many short spurs given the same number as the main motorway - other examples to the one given would be on the M1 at junction 10 near Luton, the M1 at Junction 21A near Leicester, the A627(M) has a spur at the central junction, the Gatwick Spur on the M23...

Motorway translations
Besides the Autobahn and autostrada, which are fairly well-known in English-speaking contexts, do the other translations of motorway differ from the average European motorways?

Peter Isotalo 19:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Autoroute is French. Freeway might have more, not sure. --SPUI (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Freeway in French is Autoroute sans péage which translates literally "Motorway without toll". The French also have other roads called Voie rapide and Pénétrante which could be roughly translated as "Expressway" and "Spur road" respectively. Apgeraint 20:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A freeway generally means a road which is expected to facilitate the free movement of vehicles rather than the absense of tolls


 * Freeway doesn't mean "toll-free road". It can be tolled just like any other road, e.g. Riverside Freeway. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Service stations
In the UK, at least, service stations are a notable feature of motorways. Could someone write about them, please? Andy Mabbett 09:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Stub now at Motorway service station. See also Category:Motorway service stations in the UK.Andy Mabbett 13:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page Move
I don't see what is a *MAJOR* move having been discussed anywhere. This article is now *WAY* too long and 'motorway' is not just a european term. Please revert this edit asap and put it up for discussion for a merge before taking such a destructive and major action. --Vamp:Willow 12:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur. Whatever E70's up to, it's clearly not in accordance with Wikipedia policy.  He had better not make any similarly drastic changes to the comparable American articles, or else all the American roadgeeks on WP will be really pissed off (and will eagerly sign a petition to the admins to get him banned).  --Coolcaesar 12:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked for 48 hours and I've reverted all his changes. Keep an eye on him and report to admins if he does it again.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge
Picking up from the events of earlier today and discussion immediately above, this is as good aplace as any to discuss whether a merge is or may be appropriaate in any way. If you look furhter up this page to the start of 2004 you'll see that there was a complete merge/rewrite/split of all the 'motorway' pages (ie all the national names) in order to rejoin the content that had crept into the different articles back to the correct terminology, (indeed it was done by me but I am quite happy to see any new consensus). Whilst there are a few Europe-wide attributes that may be appropriate most considerations about roads are national, however I felt then and still do that to combine all the national/international content about major fast multi-lane grade-separated-junction central-reservation type roads into one place would create an article way too massive and lead to lots more edit and content conflicts than we already have at present on the individual articles. But ymmv ... so options anyone? --Vamp:Willow 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a road aficonado, and I know this might upset both Americans and Continental Europeans, but I must say there was some logic behind E70's edits even if they were very distructive and inconsiderate of other editors. There really is no major difference between either "motorway", "freeway", "Autobahn", "Autostrada" or any number of terms, even if they're notable in English. They all refer to major road installations for handling large amounts of traffic and really don't differ enough to merit separate articles. I think the most common international term is "motorway", so I suggest redirecting all English and non-English terms here and trying to summarize the information. Mind you, I speak American English and I favor American spelling standards, so this is not a pro-Commonwealth issue.
 * The focus needs to be to make these articles easier to read and find for people who don't have roads as a hobby or major interest.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not particularly feasible to equate the terms. They refer to things that are roughly similar, but that is all. Perhaps some "uber article" describing all such high-capacity roads would be good, but I do not see that it should need to be located at Freeway.
 * zoney &#09827; talk 23:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose any merger. Not the same. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 01:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Having just come to this (extended!) discussion, I'd like to chime in. It strikes me that many aspects of high-speed, limited-access roads are common to all countries.  They are trans-national engineering considerations.  It would, perhaps, be useful to create Zoney's "uber-article" and then have sub-articles for regional variations on the concept (motorways, freeways, autostradas, etc. etc.).  The one sticking point--one that can be overcome--is to find a common name for these things.  "Superhighways," perhaps?
 * --MatthewStevens (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed over and over. Look at the dates in this discussion: no consensus was formed in more than two years. I believe the best thing is to leave as is. A common name is highly improbable, if not impossible to find. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Completion date
Many of the completion dates are missing for motorways. Could I have help inserting them? Sceptre ( Talk ) 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: Finished the long task: Feel free to do infoboxes for M6T and the Ax(M) motorways. Sceptre ( Talk ) 22:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of motorway needed to be boxed. Delete the motorway when finished Sceptre  ( Talk  ) 12:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * M23
 * M25
 * M26
 * M27
 * M275
 * M32
 * M40
 * M42
 * M45
 * M48
 * M49
 * M50
 * M51
 * M53
 * M54
 * M55
 * M56
 * M57
 * M58
 * M59
 * M6T
 * M61
 * M65
 * M66
 * M67
 * M602
 * M621
 * M74
 * M77
 * M9
 * M90

Merge/split
I've removed these templates, as ten days have elapsed without a clear consensus.

zoney &#09827; talk 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Junctions must be numbered?
In the section about UK-Specifics, it states that in the UK, junctions must have a number. This may be the ideal, but I note that this is not always applied! Good examples: M275, A329(M).


 * That section was a mess. I've cleaned it up a bit.--Shantavira|feed me 09:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Highway
Technically, a UK motorway is not a highway (as stated in the defining paragraph). It is a motor road. In the UK, a "highway" is a right of way, which a motorway is not. I'm not sure how (or whether) to fix this.--Shantavira|feed me 09:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? As far as I am aware under the UK definition a highway is any route with any form of right of way, be it a footpath, a bridleway, a cycleway, a restricted byway, a byway open to all traffic, a classified road, a principal road or a special road (also known as a Motorway). Road Wizard 12:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

UK central reservations
The following extract from the "Common Criteria" section doesn't quite seem to make sense to me: "The central reservation remains unbroken (an exception being [...] a section of the M40 in Warwickshire, with an unusually wide grass verge separating the carriageways)." I'm not quite sure what this bit is supposed to mean: surely a grassed area separating the carriageways is a central reservation? The fact it's exceptionally wide doesn't imply it's not unbroken. In any event, there are plenty of other places with wide central reservations: M6 close to Shap summit in Cumbria, M62 summit between Manchester and Leeds (that even has a farm on it!). Can anyone discern what's meant here? Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Are roundabouts allowed?
No roundabouts apart from at the start and finish and some motorway interchanges This means that roundabouts can be used at the start, finish and as motorway interchanges. In other words, their use is not restricted. Could someone explain this and rewrite the sentence in the article? Also, the explanation of "motorway interchanges" in the context of this would be useful. It seems that most countries in the world and the UK disagree about the definition of an "interchange". Admiral Norton (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know. In Ireland there are NO at-grade roundabouts on actual motorways. I'm not sure what the case is in the UK, but I'd imagine it'd be similar.
 * Yes there are, two in fact:

- M50 Junction 3 - an at grade roundabout on the mainline. If you continue straight ahead for the N32, motorway regulations don't end until the next roundabout for Baskin. At least, this was originally the case, but its harder to see since they resignposted it as part of the Port Tunnel works. (Its now possible to leave the M50 at this junction via the N32 without ever hitting any "end of motorway" signs). -M1 Junction 3 - this roundabout isn't on the mainline, but you'll hit it if you join the M1 at the Dublin Airport roundabout. The entire roundabout (and the 1km or so spur motorway leading to it)is nonetheless under motorway regulations, as the only places you can get to from it are the M1 northbound or southbound. Rdd (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the writer when the writer said 'as motorway interchanges', he was referring to the fact you can have slip roads leading to a roundabout (as is often the case in the UK and Ireland), with the mainline passing underneath. I wouldn't imagine an at-grade roundabout would be acceptable for a motorway. Trans5999 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are examples in the UK which have roundabouts on the mainline: M271, M60, A627(M), A601(M) Jenuk1985 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland
I find the paragraphs on Irish motorways as way too detailed and esoteric. CFCF (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Esoteric"; confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle. I like the "enlightened" bit. Could you cite an example of this esotericism? Sarah777 (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Driver Location Signs
I have been adding information regarding driver location signs. The work is still in progress, but is taking shape. Currently I have written an article Highway route markers which has a section on driver location signs. I might hive that off at a later date if appropriate. Meanwhile I have also made additions to the exit lists for the M3, M25 and M26 motorways. My own feeling is that the M25 addition is fine - it is totally verifiable. I am not too happy about the M26 addition (identification of carriageways) as it is not verified. I have taken a slightly different approach to the M3 addition of carriageway identifiers - I have recorded the date on which I actually viewed the markers - I believe that this is a verifiable source rather than original research since anybody can likewise go to the M3 and verify what I saw in the same way as they would do if it were a book. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Environmental effects
To me this whole section seems out of place and its inclusion is in my mind (slightly) POV, the environmental effects of road transport are VERY well covered in numerous other articles. We don't need them going over again on every road related article in existence. Midlandstoday (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Junction Lists on separate pages?
Is there any benefit of moving the junction lists (at any rate of the major motorways - criteria still to be decided) onto their own pages - this will assist any readers who might like to print the junction list off. In such cases, there would be a note at the top of the article to this effect. Martinvl (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Motorways – Freeway – Expressway debate (again)
This posting appears on the Talk pages of Motorway, Expressway and Freeway. Please respond on the Motorway talk page.

An install-delete battle is breaking out on the Motorways article regarding the description of Pakistan’s motorways. I do not want to take sides, but I would like to resolve this problem and also, at the same time resolve the larger problem of Motorway, Freeways and Expressways.

My proposal is as follows:
 * 1) The section on Pakistan’s motorways be allowed to stand for the time being.


 * 2) A new article entitled Motorways, Freeways and Expressways be written. This article will explain the difference between the various terms using the OECD definition as a starting point.  The choice of the OECD definition will ensure a neutral standpoint.


 * 3) Merge the Freeways article and Motorways articles into one, removing country-specific items unless they are noteworthy outside the country concerned. The combined article (which would have the title OECD-preferred name of Motorway) would have a short introduction to the various country-specific articles which would serve as an introduction to the article List of highway systems with full control of access and no cross traffic.


 * 4) Finally point redirect the Expressway article to the Motorway article.

Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with both major aspects of your merger proposal. Freeway is the more common term in use worldwide, especially because it's used heavily in the U.S. media and entertainment industries and therefore has global circulation (see the list of references at Freeway (disambiguation)).  In contrast, I don't see any rappers or movies called "Motorway."  Freeway is also much less confusing, more accurate, and more precise, as motorway on its face could theoretically apply to any road intended for motor vehicles.  The merger of road type and classification in the concept of the motorway is also extremely confusing and very poorly thought out, which is how the UK ends up with insane highway numbers like A1(M).  If we need an integrated article, "freeway" is by far the better choice to merge into. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a lot of non sequiturs there. I oppose the merge, but for different reasons - a motorway is a specific class of road rather than a standard of road. If a segment of the A1 is upgraded to freeway standards, it does not necessarily become a motorway; it has to be redesignated A1(M) to become one, just as a road in the U.S. can be a freeway but not an Interstate. --NE2 06:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your assertion only holds for a few countries, mainly the UK, and Wikipedia is meant to have a world-view not a country-specific view. In other countries a motorway (or equivalent term such as freeway) is not a class of road but is a standard of road. For example in South Africa roads are classified as National, Regional or Metropolitan and in each class the standard of road may vary between motorway and single carriageway without grade separation. For example in the Cape Town metropolitan area the N1 is motorway; the M3 has two discontinous sections of motorway (De Waal Drive-Rhodes Drive and the Simon van der Stel Freeway) seperated by a non-motoway section of the route; and then the R300 (Cape Flats Freeway and Kuils River Freeway) is also motorway.


 * This also illustrates why the distinction between "motorway" and "freeway" is artificial as motorway and freeway are used interchangeably in SA for this standard of road. Some roads have "freeway" as part of their name and some have "motorway". For example the M1 in Johannesburg is the De Villiers Graaff Motorway while the section of the N1 that bypasses Pretoria is the Danie Joubert Freeway and there is no objective difference (indeed many have names that do not imply any particular standard of road - eg motorway sections of the N2 in Cape Town are Eastern Boulevard and Settlers Way, the N1 between Johannesburg and Pretoria is the Ben Schoeman Highway etc, and many other sections have no name apart from their route number).


 * We now have the illogical situation where roads are seemly arbitrarily divided between motorway and freeway articles. South African roads come under freeway, but they could equally as legitimately come under motorway. Australia gets into both articles. Thai roads fall under motorway, but is there really any objective reasons why they are motorways rather than freeways?


 * Incorrect - The OECD definition of motorway explicitly states that one of the conditions of a motorway is that specific classes of traffic are excluded from using that road. Under English law (I cannot speak for Scottish Law), any road, except for designated motorways, can be used by pedestrians, cyclists etc. Martinvl (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know if the OECD counts western Interstates that allow pedestrians and cyclists in their statistics then. --NE2 11:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You tell me - I have never been to the US so I don't really know what you are talking about. However the OECD table shows that the US has just over 75,000 km of motorway, while the CIA factbook says that the US has just over 75,000 km of expressway. Martinvl (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See non-motorized access on freeways - long stretches of Interstate freeway in the Western U.S. allow them. --NE2 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you run searches on Google News and on Google search, freeway returns almost twice as many results as motorway. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could that be because there are four times as many Americans as there are Brits? Martinvl (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose such a merger, it completely goes against common sense. A motorway and a freeway are completely different things, generally standards are different (though in the UK, a motorway isn't a standard of road, though there are generally accepted "unofficial" minimum standards). To even suggest that these two articles be merged just shows lack of understanding of the subject in hand. The suggestion by Coolcaesar that Freeway is a more common term is equally pathetic, and another example of Americanism's trying to take over Wikipedia. Jeni ( talk ) 15:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC


 * So what exactly is the distinction between a motorway and a freeway? If they are "completely different things" they distinguishing them should be easy. Here is a photo of the N2 in Cape Town: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Greater_Cape_Town_12.02.2007_16-41-05.2007_16-41-7.JPG. Is it objectively a motorway or a freeway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A motorway is defined for statistical purposes by the OECD. In the US a freeway was a road on which no tolls were changed, but in South Africa the word "freeway" was, I believe, adopted by the SA Government in preference to "motorway" as a snub to the British.  As you are probably aware, the Afrikaans for "freeway" is "snelweg" (or expressway) which is yet another word.  I suppose that the real answer to your question is that a motorway, freeway or expressway is whatever the local politicians write into the law and only motorway has an internationally-recorgnised definition. Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is exactly my point and shows why motorway and freeway are not "completely different things", but objectively the same thing as they cannot be classified as one or the other except by location. It's simply a difference in terminology not in the nature of the road and as logical as arguing that a railway and a railroad are "completely different" things. There may have been an anti-British element to the choice of term in SA, but more important in my opinion is that in the period when this type of road started to be built in SA (1950s-60s) the USA was already more influential than Britain as its freeway development was greater than the UK's motorway one. The same thing can be observed in more recent developments such as cellphone rather than mobile phone in SA.

Revocation of 5-Jan-2010
I revoked the changes for a number of reasons:
 * The OECD definition is a legal, internationally recognised definition which describes all the features of a motorway in a concise manner while the new definition of “three of four carriageways” is incorrect – most motorways have two carriageways consisting of between two and six lanes in each carriageway.
 * Since the OECD is a legal definition, it should be included as it stands – the original text has the French translation which is why it has been included.
 * Martinvl (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, in Afrikaans there is an alternative term, perhaps older and less frequently used now: motorweg. My old Cape Peninsula A-Z labels the Cape Flats Freeway (then under construction) as Kaapse Vlakte Motorweg. In my opinion seperating motorway from freeway makes as much sense as insisting a railway and a railroad are completely different things or a lift and elevator are different etc. One could start insisting that a railroad was different from a railway because it had a different guage or a different platform height or some other feature of construction, or you could say a lift was a lift and not an elevator because the floors were numbered differently or used different types of equipment etc etc, but it still wouldn't make any sense. People, I think, have conflated "motorway" with British motorways and "freeway" with US or North American freeways and lost sight of the broader picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Intermediate forms
I've moved this in based on Talk:Semi-highway. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Speed limits - Dual units
The use of dual units in the section on speed limits makes for disruptive reading. I have inserted a conversion table which I hope will remedy this problem. Are people happy for me to remove the dual units from the text and to place the statement The units used for speed limits in this section are those displayed on the roads concerned at the start of the section? Martinvl (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fake hatnote regarding conversions
My removal of the pseudo-hatnote/disclaimer regarding why units are not converted on this article was reverted. I don't understand the rationale behind why we're not converting units anyway, but even if that's what's been decided we should not be inventing new ways of telling these things to users. Hatnotes have a specific styling and a specific purpose: that should not be co-opted for random editorial comments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason why WP:MOS requires that both systems of units be used is an aide memoire to assist the reader who is unfamiliar with one or other unit of measure. In an article such as this, speed limits are repeated so frequently that seeing the conversions every time that a speed limit is mentioned destroys the flow of the text. Until now, nobody has commented on the arrangement in this article.  Given that the consensus is that a conversion table is acceptable and that if there is no hat-note some smart-alec will object to conversions not being in-line, what do you propose? Martinvl (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Smart-alec here. Most probably the article should just have inline conversions and format them for minimal disruption. Having said that, if there's general support for doing things the present way, the answer is to just document this on the talk page and then add an editnotice referring to the talk page consensus. Information that's only useful to editors, and not to readers, should not be presented to the readers who make up most of the audience for the encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the preceding section. Martinvl (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Readers should not be expected to look to new conventions on a per-article basis. MOS:CONVERSIONS allows for repeated conversions of the same value to be omitted; that would work well here IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you examine the article, you will see that 90% of the speed limits are in one section and the speed limit conversion table is clearly visible to readers (at least on my PC). There are two or three other instances of speed limits and the hat-note refers to them. Martinvl (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This still isn't an appropriate use of a hatnote. Perhaps the best solution would be to move the note to the appropriate section and use the normal conversion code for speeds found outside of that section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge
What is happening with the merge proposal that seemed to have been agreed?

As it is, this article is a mess. It appears to be at its core a "Motorways in the United Kingdom" article with information about sundry other countries tacked on. The other countries appear to have been chosen either solely because they use the term "motorway" rather than another word (ie is there anything inherently similar about an Irish and a Pakistani motorway that belongs here, but not say a Japanese expressway, other than the actual name used) or for no reason at all (eg Spain, Germany, Hungary etc, which could equally well go under "freeway" under this arbitrary division between motorway  and freeway)

We need a single article that covers grade-separated limited access roads on a world scale and all the country-specific stuff can go into separate articles such as Motorways in the United Kingdom, Freeways in the USA, Expressways in Japan etc.

Lets not get too hung up about the precise definitions, which differ slightly from country to country or jurisdiction to jurisdiction, or exceptions to the general rules such as bicycles being allowed on US freeways in some states etc. There are lots of concepts that do not have absolutely hard and fast definitions that apply in all cases, yet it doesn't stop us from having articles about them. No-one can come up with a definition of railway/railroad that draws a precise line between them, metros, subways and trams. The dividing line between tree and shrub can be a little hazy, but everyone still knows what a tree is. Booshank (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. Sarah777 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Any reason why there are "Z" instead of "S" in this article; What language is it in? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 03:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * At the moment it is to be written in Oxford English, which offers a compromise between British English (which Motorway was written in) and American English (which Freeway was written in). However, most of it is copy/pasted from various parts of each article and so at the moment there will very likely be parts in AmEng and parts in BrEng. There's some more info at Talk:Freeway. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for my ignorance, I didn't know Oxford English was American. Until the article is written, and a Motorways in the United Kingdom will probably have to be written to expand on the section for the UK (and all other countries in the world) and in English (by English, read English English), the article is American. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 03:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note "is to be written in", and not "is written in". Many countries should already have an article dedicated to their national highway system (ie the Motorway System in the United Kingdom), if not a section of their Transportation in X article. There is no reason to create a separate article though for countries that currently only have a few paragraphs of information. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Controlled-access highway which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)