Talk:Utah State Route 269

Junction list
I know that UDOT technically considers it to be a loop of sorts, but it's really a one-way pair. I think it should only have the eastbound direction. --NE2 17:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * UDOT posts separate mileages for the eastbound and westbound segments, and this way the last junction has the mileage that is listed in the route length in the infobox. CL — 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Should that really be listed as the length? It's a one-way pair, signed east in one direction and west in the other. --NE2 17:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, if we listed the length of just one pair as the length of the whole route, it would be as if it were one single city street with a really wide median with buildings in the middle. I think SR-269 should have that westbound segment length included, as it would probably be a fully intact route (with a small overlap with US-89) if UDOT wasn't absolutely against overlaps. And anyway, the two separate junctions with I-15/I-80 are somewhat different, so we might as well list the whole thing. CL — 18:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Utah is strange because there are very few one-way streets and thus very few one-way pairs. In any other state this would be inventoried as the other direction, but UDOT hasn't had to deal with enough (I can only think of SR-79 and SR-104, which are treated similarly; in the logs, they even call them eastbound and westbound lanes). You can see an example in another state here; ODOT (essentially; there are some irrelevant issues here) calls one direction 99E (1) and the other 99E (2). The mileage of 99E (2) is measured "backwards", and where the two directions rejoin, the figures are a bit different and a milepoint equation is needed to reconcile 99E (2) mileage. --NE2 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with NE2 here. One-way pairs are fairly common (although not in Utah).  If this weren't a one-way pair, then the entire length would be one-way, which is almost unheard of, so it's pretty obvious we should treat it as a one-way pair.  The length listed in the infobox should be the longer of the two – it looks like eastbound is 0.904 miles, westbound is 0.902 miles, and each junction should be listed in both the infobox and the junction list only once.  However, I have no problem with putting both mileposts in the junction list, with a note at the top or bottom explaining what's going on. -- Kéiryn (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with the current method is that it's signed east-west, and considered such by UDOT (see the SR-270 log), but as a loop it has north and south ends. --NE2 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible way of dealing with infobox with this new method: SR 202. Note the CW and CCW end, how about that? Or should we do a west end of I-15/I-80 and an east end of US-89? CL — 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SR 202 is a two-way loop; this is a one-way pair with a west end at I-15 and an east end at US-89. --NE2 07:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about now? It's not the best job (especially the junction list), but it will do for now. Feel free to improve it - CL — 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do soon, when I finish adding history to the routes between 211 and 269. --NE2 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph
I've been uneasy about moving the third lead paragraph from the RD to the lead. I think it belongs in the RD, but I don't want to do anything before more input. CL — 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The way it's written, I think it belongs in the lead. It's a little mix of route description and history, and doesn't really fit anywhere in the RD with a west to east progression.  That being said, the lead should summarize the rest of the article, so if you plan on taking this article higher than GA-class, you should expand on the statements being made there and make sure there is something in the body about it. -- Kéiryn (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it needs a more reliable source than Utah Highways. --NE2 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, duly noted, the RD just looks a bit empty now IMO, especially for GA. I tried finding something to write more about, but couldn't really think of anything. And anyway, for the source, I used only the info that would be common knowledge at the time (like the bit about the Gateway, which was probably in the news non-stop in the late-90s). CL — 08:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)