User talk:SPUI/Chicago archive

Chicago streets
Hi! I had been thinking for some time that Wikipedia needed an article about Wacker Drive. I finally sat down to start it today and found you'd already written much more than I knew about it. I've left a couple comments at Talk:Wacker Drive. Also, in response to your query on Talk:Chicago, Illinois. I do travel in downtown frequently and I would be happy to help you by supplying information on Chicago streets&mdash;of course, it may take some time to collect all the information. I'd looked in vain for maps showing the mulitple levels of Chicago downtown streets, and even tried myself a couple times to draw a three-dimensional map&mdash;didn't work out, though. Let me know how I can help. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 07:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll try to start collecting information for you. If you have any preference for order of streets for me to investigate, let me know. It'll take some time, of course, for me to collect this information since I'll only occasionally be able to go exploring. Actually, the list of multiple streets you have has all the ones I could think of. I'll keep my eye out for more. Also, as you suspected, Columbus does have a third level&mdash;I've only been on it once, a long time ago (when I was exploring late one night), and I'm no longer certain how I got down there. But I'll find it again. Finally, with respect with how to represent it on a map&mdash;this is the tricky issue, and it's what was my downfall. In the first place, ramps are hard to represent. The second is that though almost always we can separate all streets into either an "upper" or "lower" (or "lowest") level, there are a few exceptions. The one I can think of offhand is say you are driving east on lower Wacker, towards Lake Michigan. To cross the River, you could turn left (north) on either lower Michigan or lower Columbus (2 lights later). If you turn on lower Michigan, you can turn right (east) at the next light, lower North Water. This continues east and ends right before Lake Shore Drive. However, if you took (lower) Columbus instead, once you cross the river you will intersect upper North Water. Columbus inclines downwards to intersect (lower) Illinois, as does the other street that comes off Upper North Water, Park Street or something like that. Does this make sense? It would be a lot easier to draw it out. In any case, I will begin investigating and let you know. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 08:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I posted a bunch of information about Lower Wacker's connections at Talk:Wacker Drive. Let me know if it's what you need. Also, I drove on Lower Columbus today, can tell you this: Upper Columbus exists from Wacker Drive to Randolph Street. Lower Columbus intersects Lower Randolph, (Lower?) Lake Street (gotta double check this on upper Columbus when I get the chance), Lower South Water; there is then a northbound entrance ramp coming up from Columbus Drive, service level. Upper Columbus then ends in Upper Wacker, while (lower) Columbus crosses the river and intersects upper North Water street, crossing over Lower North Water. The remainder of the intersections are single level. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 21:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I managed to find my way to the service levels last night, although it is a little creepy down there, and it's even harder to tell what street you're on. The only reason someone'd be down there is to get access to some point down there, not for transportation. I'll have to explore it again before I can get a better understanding of those connections, but I can definitely tell you that SL Wacker begins in the west by SL Stetson. It then T-intersects with SL Columbus and continues east until 400 E, the "longitude" of McClurg Court&mdash;but there is no street at this level, SL Wacker just ends in the auto pound. The one westbound ramp I mentioned is the only direct connection I could find between SL and Lower Wacker. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 22:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The new diagram looks great! I'm not entirely positive about the southern terminus because there are so many ways on and off, but it looks like all the routes I take are there&mdash;I'll explore the other connections when I have time. Yeah, I saw that Wasbash ramp on your earlier map, but I don't believe it exists anymore, at least&mdash;I hadn't really driven on Wacker Drive before the construction, so I don't know if it was there then. I do know that as you drive over Michigan Avenue on the bridge, then turn right onto Lower Wacker, it is temporarily three lanes but the third lane immediately merges with the second; it appears to be there to allow CTA buses to stop and pick up people. There's no ramp to get off lower Wacker; in fact, I do not believe W/S Lower Wacker has any exit ramps off the right side; they're all off the left. I looked at those pictures and I'm really at a loss to explain them. From the date, they would be after the reconstruction, but I really don't know of any ramp there&mdash;granted, I normally see it from the inside, not from across the river. I did some online searching and found this Chicago Tribune article which says "Ramps connecting Lower and Upper Wacker have been permanently closed at Lake Street and Wabash to reduce accidents.The ramp at Randolph has been converted into an up-ramp to make it easier for CTA buses to go to the Metra stations," so perhaps it used to be a ramp but now isn't anymore. I don't even recall seeing a ramp adjacent to Lower Wacker blocking view of the river, though. In any case, you can take it off the diagam. Also, I don't know if you can easily indicate it, but you can only exit to L Wacker Place from eastbound L Wacker, not from westbound. Also, I am going to have to check on this Field Boulevard; off hand, I don't think there are any streets connecting to U Wacker after U Columbus and the down ramp, but I am not certain. The lower lower level map looks good too, and is accurate including ramp side placement as far as I know, but my knowledge of that stuff is very weak. The only questionable part is the Columbus ramps from Randolph; while there is at least the upramp there I thought it might be from the Millenium Park garage which also has some downramps a block or so before (south). I think SL Columbus begins at SL Randolph but I'll investigate. Finally, with respect to North Water&mdash;I don't believe there is any lower lower level. As you're heading east, the upper level ends just before L North Water intersects New Street. It continues past McClurg Ct. and between two buildings, but it ends in a dead end just before Lake Shore Drive. One could continue walking east if you climbed the fence, but cars can't and it is not paved. I can take a photograph of it if you like. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 02:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I've never heard of this Carroll, but I'll definitely check it out. Also we should decide a consistent term to refer to the third level of streets. I'm not a big fan of "lower lower" because it doesn't sound very serious. I've seen "service level" before, or perhaps "sub-lower" or "sub-level" or even "lowest"? Any ideas? That map you pointed out (nice find, by the way&mdash;you're very resourceful) called them Upper, Intermediate, and Lower. That'd be appropriate if there were more triple-decker streets but I don't think we can use that consistently (especially since terms like "Lower Wacker" are already well established).

I did some exploring of the upper levels. This is what I found. Randolph, heading east, splits into Upper and Lower Randolph. Heading east on Upper Randolph you'll have Upper Stetson to your left (N), then Upper Randolph also to left (N), finally ending in a forced left turn on to (Upper??) Harbor Dr for a short distance before that dead-ends. I have to check if Harbor has a lower level (I suspect it does). If you were to head north on U Stetson from U Randolph you would find U Lake ending on your left (W, one way E), then U South Water on your right. The two lanes are separated because a two-way ramp is between them. U Stetson then ends in U Wacker. Going N on U Columbus, starting at U Randolph, just one intersection: U South Water on your left (W). First is the eastbound lane, then a two-way ramp going down to L Stetson, then the westbound lane.

Service level is still confusing. You know how L Wacker Place branches off from L Wacker? After it crosses L Michigan, it becomes SL South Water St. I am not sure if/how you want to indicate that on your map. The two-way ramp then, like you've shown, rises up to end in L Columbus. Staying on SL S Water of course takes you to SL Columbus. Southbound on L Columbus, there is a downward ramp to SL Columbus (on the W lane) about the same position as the upward ramp on the opposite side, perhaps a little south. I don't think the Randolph ramps connect here (maybe they're part of the garage) because I couldn't find them when I was down there. So as I understand it. SL Columbus starts at SL Randolph (it's two-way of course), heads north, intersection on left (W) with SL Lake, then intersection on L (W) with both lanes of SL south Water (gap in the middle for upramp), then ramp up to L Columbus on right and down from L Columbus on westmost lane southbound, then ends in SL Wacker. Once I double-check the ramps that area, at least, will be done. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 06:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right; I got confused in my ramp placement. That's the correct position for the ramps, not the location further north by Wacker Drive. Sure, your terminology is fine&mdash;so do you plan to refer to them as Upper and Mid-Wacker Drive then? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 08:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All right, you can definitely take off the ramp(s) I mistakenly thought went from service to mid Columbus by Wacker. There are only two ramps: the one up from service enters mid Columbus just north of Lake; the one down to service leaves mid just south of Lake. So you can change those on the service level and and lower maps. The service map otherwise is perfect, except maybe you want to extend service level South Water a little west and say "becomes mid" or however you word it. The South Water map is perfect as far as I can tell. I can also confirm now that there is no ramp from lower (mid) westbound Wacker up to Wabash; I was able to spot some ramp along the right edge of the road but it is exterior to the pillars and I see no way for a car to reach it. I won't be able to explore until next week but when I do I will traverse Upper Wacker and try to see where that ramp comes from. Anyway, you can remove that from the Wacker Drive map and I think it's ready for you to put in the article itself&mdash;you can always of course update it later. The other maps look amazing; I'll look over them and give you advice on anything I notice. More later&hellip; &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 04:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The upper map looks great. There are definitely somethings I have to check, like Wabash (which is of course difficult due to the construction) and Rush, and La Salle/Carroll. One thing I can say is that the block of McClurg Court between Ohio and Ontario, and only that block, is one-way northbound. The lower map is great too. I can offer you some clarification on Lower North Water Street. Kinzie turns into it probably when it becomes a mid-level street. If you continue east on Lower North Water, after you cross Lower Michigan, the street that is below the west (upper) Cityfront Plaza is actually (lower) Saint Clair; it connects with Lower Illinois but is not continuous with the St. Clair that goes north from Illinois. I drove by it today and confirmed that the sign on Illinois clearly says "St. Clair." Anyway, so as you were driving on Lower North Water, you would go through a T-intersection where St. Clair went off to the north but LNW continues east. However, it almost immediately then makes a 90-degree right turn, and then 90 degrees to the left, presumably under the eastern lanes of Cityfront Plaza. It then emerges as you have drawn it just before New Street. The other thing I noticed is say someone is turning right (S) from Illinois onto Lower LSD. The southbound Lower LSD lanes then split; those on the right go to mid-Wacker as you have drawn, but the ones on the left continue (and are joined by lanes from eastbound mid-Wacker) to become the south upramp to upper LSD. It's just a short stroke of red that's missing. Keep up the good work! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 05:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm 90% positive that the ramp takes you too far north to turn onto Lake but I'll check on Sunday to be sure (I've been exploring so many new streets that I'm forgetting a little). The top-view map is amazing&mdash;I would have loved to have these maps five or so years ago. I'll get you the info in a few days. Talk to you then. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 06:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are correct; you cannot turn left from the Columbus upramp to middle Lake (although you can turn right from Middle lake to the downramp. Also, I discovered a new exit off of Wacker Drive today&mdash;I didn't realize it was a street before; it just looked like the space between two buildings. Anyway if you are heading eastbound only on Lower (middle) Wacker just before Stetson, you will find a right turn (no traffic light) onto a Beaubien Court. Going south, you will cross SL South Water before ending in a dead end approximately a block or so. Going back north, you can only turn right on Lower Wacker, not left, due to the median. You'll probably want to update your service level map too and by the way don't forget to extend SL South Water a bit to the west and indicate that it came goes up to mid-level or however you do it, as well as remove the upramp at South Water and Columbus that I erroneously reported. I like the "Chicago all levels" map by the way, and the enigmatic Carroll Avenue appears pretty much as you drew it&mdash;doesn't seem to really go anywhere. Anyway, I'll be continuing to check things out; any problems streets/intersections you're particularly interested in? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 05:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With regard to Beaubien, not very sure it all; it may very well go to the level of Lake Street. After crossing SL South Water, it doesn't cross any more streets but just dead-ends, so it is a bit hard to know how far you are going. Thinking back on it, it probably was more like 2 blocks. I'll check on the southern part of Lower Michigan tomorrow hopefully, but as for the northern part: so it begins at Grand; as you go south, there is an intersection with Illinois, then a T-intersection with Hubbard on the west, then an intersection with North Water, then cross the river to lower Michigan and so on, like in your map. Your map seems accurate to me&mdash;how else have you seen it portrayed? Yes, you can turn from SL Columbus to the upramp; I believe you can turn from the upramp onto lower Stetson&mdash;it definitely comes before the intersection, but there may not be much room to make the three lane changes. I will check on the distance tomorrow. Anything else? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 09:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All right, got some information for you: first of all, I was mistaken&mdash;the upramp from SL Wacker carries you past the Stetson traffic light. It is before the Beaubien intersection, but that can only be accessed from the eastbound lanes anyway. As for SL Beaubien, it does go pretty far, maybe about 2 blocks? It must go to the level of Randolph, because as I was driving, I saw signs for La Strada on the right (west) just before the end. Lower Michigan doesn't go nearly that far&mdash;I'd say less than half a block after Lower South Water. Huh&mdash;never knew that about Hubbard, although it definitely ends in Lower Michigan now. I really couldn't tell about Lower Wabash&mdash;it's hard to tell since it is closed starting at Hubbard. If it goes farther it must end in a dead-end, since it can't cross the river, right? Haven't had a chance to swing by Carroll yet; I'll do so when I have a chance to visit downtown later in the evening. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 06:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also went searching for Lower Harbor Drive today. It doesn't come off of middle Randolph, but if you are driving east on service level Randolph, it ends like upper Randolph does in a forced left turn onto (service level) Harbor Drive. There's no sign, but there are a couple addresses along it; the last one I saw was 175 N. Harbor Drive. It then ends in a "street" (probably around the level of Lake) that is unsigned and goes into a driveway-type-thing on the left and maybe half a block on the right. Also, I went to explore your upper levels of the Lakeshore East development. Didn't really find anything. There's no sign of any of the future Field Blvd. intersection you've mentioned at the end of Upper Wacker; perhaps it can't be easily seen from the car. However, if you are going east on Upper Randolph, you can turn left onto Field: it ramps down to the ground level, then ends in a loop around the area, like in the map you showed me at. Like in the map, there is a short road off the northern segment, but it ends before reaching Wacker Drive, and it's at ground level, anyway. Incidentally, you can see SL Harbor from the loop although you cannot enter it. The other roads on that map don't appear to be built yet, or else they're blocked off by fences and/or barricades. If I'm around at night sometime I'll leave my car and check it out on foot to see what they've built past the fences. The articles are looking good; I think you should start putting the map images into the articles, so that others can enjoy them as well. Oh by the way, the segment south of North Water Street is one-way: McClurg Court south of N Water Street is one-way south, then that "River Dr" is one-way east, and New St. is one-way north up till N. Water Street. That's a relatively new change, I think. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 06:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had a little free time so I tried investigating Field Drive. There is a very short "road" off of SL Randolph, but it is unlabeled and is perhaps the length of a typical suburban house driveway. I would hesitate to call it a "road", and there was a sign calling for pedestrian traffic only. You can see the road above ramping down like a sloping ceiling, cutting the "road" short, but it didn't seem to me that that road was high enough to be Upper Field. I'll have to check it out later, maybe this weekend when I investigate Carroll. The north piece of Field, as it is now, could definitely not connect to upper or middle Wacker. In fact, it appears to run almost or right up to the fence at service level Wacker. Perhaps it will be connected their eventually. I couldn't drive it because it was partially blocked by some type of garbage truck and I was already attracting weird looks. I'd draw it as extending to SL Wacker but not connecting. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 07:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Great job on the map. But it lacks a key. For instance, what does the dashed "old Lake Shore Drive" mean? Is it still a road? Also the article text mention multi-level roads on both sides of the river, perhaps a second simpler map covering a larger area is also necessary. Maybe a street map with the multi-level roads all higlighted in the same color. Rmhermen 16:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

All right, I have some time on Sunday I'll go exploring. I'll try to check on the north section of Field to see if it does run right up to SL Wacker. Yeah, the same thought about middle Field being that ramp occurred to me, although I didn't notice any ramp when I drove by on middle Randolph. I'll check again&mdash;the only way to get there is to come from LSD, and you can't have entered from Illinois/Grand/Wacker, which is a bit annoying. I don't remember a noticeable slope on Randolph there but I will check on Sunday. There is definitely no slope on SL Randolph. The Lakeshore East loop seemed to be at the same level as SL Harbor Drive&mdash;in fact, that's what made me realize it was a street there (I could see things like "155 Harbor" painted on the walls. There doesn't (yet) appear to be any connection, though. It's definitely not at the level of upper Harbor, which you can see far above SL Harbor. I don't know what's in between them; there's just a wall of concrete visible from Lakeshore East and I didn't see a way into there from Randolph. I'll double-check this one as well when I check out the northern Field. By the way, do you have any requests for any pictures? I will try to take my camera along and get some photographs to accompany these articles, especially if it's somewhere I can leave my car standing for a minute (unlike the Loop). If you're going to write an article on Lakeshore East, I think I can get a nice photograph of the construction so far from the end of Upper Wacker Drive. Though I don't know if you have the information/time to write about it; I still am amazed at how you find all this info. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Man, you're totally right&mdash;I don't know why it didn't even occur to me to U-turn after crossing under LSD. I don't know what's wrong with me. Yeah, a picture from Lakeshore East facing west would probably show the three levels of Columbus and your Illinois Center buildings behind it. I'll take one of Lakeshore East then too. Maybe on Sunday if the weather's not too bad. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All right. So you know how I mentioned that SL Harbor goes a little north and then ends in a T-intersection, with the left side looking like a driveway? Well, it does go next to a building, but because of the sharp slope and the darkness (I had gone at night), I didn't realize that it connects to the eastern road in the Lakeshore East loop! See Image:Connection between Lakeshore East and Harbor Drive, Service Level.jpg. The north segment of Field goes right up to Wacker Drive, service level, although a fence separates them. As far as southern Field, there is definitely no middle level. From middle Randolph I could see both the upper ramp coming down and the service level below. As far as elevations, this is the best I can make out: Field slopes down from Upper Randolph and looks like it reaches mid-level by the time it reaches the Lakeshore East loop. That east-west road then slants down both ways, and the north-south streets slant down a bit more. Hopefully the photographs will make it more clear. Image:Dual-level Harbor Drive.jpg is from the same place, but facing further southeast to give you an idea of the elevations and the length of Harbor Drive. I took some more pictures of Lakeshore East; see if you like any of them. I am not planning on keeping them all, but I thought they might give you an idea of the development so far. There is Image:Lakeshore East (facing south).jpg (from Upper Wacker), Image:Harbor Park (facing east).jpg (from Upper Columbus), and Image:Lakeshore East (facing northeast).jpg (from Upper Columbus). I tried zooming getting some pictures of Wacker from Lakeshore East Image:Lakeshore East (facing northeast, closeup).jpg, but I don't think it looks as good because of all the Lakeshore East dirt/construction in the foreground. Otherwise, it'd be a nice view. I'll see if I can find something better from the north shore of the river. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! You really don't have to put my name on the image itself, though I do appreciate it a lot. But a mention in the accompanying text is more than enough. The updated version looks great, of course. But I have a couple things to point out. Let me try to check on the length of Upper Harbor Drive for you. While it may go that far, I don't think that that length is "driveable" yet. Also, you might consider removing that "stub" off of Lower Wacker at Field, unless you think they're planning something there. I see no visible sign of a future attachment, and given the short length of the (lower) Field, any ramp up would be too steep, I think, unless it curved and merged on the right. Also, unfortunately, if I remember correctly, you can only drive for a block on SL Stetson, just from SL Wacker to SL South Water. I think the rest of it is blocked off or something (and SL Lake and SL Randolph dead-end there), but I'll double check. Finally, I know it's at the periphery&mdash;how much detail do you want on LSD? For instance, although in the map it looks like a T-intersection between Lower Wacker and LSD, it's a bit more complicated. For instance, if you are traveling north on LSD and talk the Randolph/Wacker exit off the right side, it travels alongside LSD while LSD splits, then curves left to intersect lower LSD. The right lanes curve to merge into northbound lower LSD, while the left lanes cross lower LSD to become Lower Wacker. Does this matter? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 09:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to warn you, I have a very time-consuming hospital rotation for the next two weeks and so I will not be able to explore much&mdash;although I'll have more time again after that. I hadn't noticed the left turn lane&mdash;is it on Upper Wacker or Middle Wacker? I'll check next time I head out that way. You're probably right; the ramps and connections of Lake Shore Drive would probably be too complex for that map. Regarding Stetson, which level seems to have the stub? I drove on the service levels today; the section of SL Stetson between SL South Water and SL Lake is blocked by fences (and does not appear to be paved), and the section between SL Lake and SL Randolph is blocked by fences/gates and seems to be some type of parking lot now. Note that you can drive on SL Lake right up to in between the two blocked sections, and on SL Randolph right up to the SL Stetson "intersection", although you cannot turn onto it. Also, Upper Harbor seems to currently extend only as far as SL Harbor. That is, that's as far as you can drive&mdash;there's a fence blocking the way after that. I can see some road and construction beyond, but can't tell how far it currently goes. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I have a zoomed-up version of Image:Aon Center (Chicago).jpg in case you or anyone decides to write about Columbus Drive. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll check those two out; hopefully over the weekend, although I'm a bit swamped at the moment. The new top down view looks amazing. I'm goint to print it out once it's "done". I like the ramps on LSD. I think a might have one or two slight modifications, but I won't know until I get a chance to explore. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have two. The first one, Image:Columbus Drive, 3 levels (facing west).jpg is nice because it's close up, has brighter colors, and you can see into the middle level as well as the upramp from the service level. Image:Columbus Drive, 3 levels (facing southwest).jpg has the advantage that the buildings look better and you can see onto Upper Columbus. I think my preference is for the latter, but what do you think? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been much help recently&mdash;I've been working 12-hour days (tomorrow will be a 16-hour shift). But after next week I'll have a better schedule, I hope. I'm not certain I understand what structure you're referring to. Is there something in front of the upramp? Which level is the structure on (or are you referring to the sidewalk in the foreground)? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found the "turn lane" on Lower Wacker. It is blocked off by concrete barriers and doesn't go anywhere. I had never even noticed it before while driving (although I am normally in the right lane at that point). I think that the stub you mentioned south of Randolph is part of the Millennium Park development. Upper and Middle Randolph are still splitting at Stetson, but Millennium Park is directly to the south of Upper Randolph&mdash;see Image:Millenniumpark_map.jpg. By the way, in case you wanted to know, there is a break in the median on Lower Randolph at the "intersection" where Field Drive is, like for making U-turns or for turning left onto the nonexistent "Middle Field". Oh and I think that is the sidewalk on Columbus, but I'll check. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 21:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is either. Although it is wide enough for ars to drive on, there is a low concrete barrier between Upper Randolph and the park. It is low enough for a car to drive over, but it is clearly not meant for automotive traffic (aside from park vehicles or something, I suppose). I don't think I would include it in your map, unless you just want to indicate that Millennium Park is there, or something. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 22:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't exactly correlate the aerial view with the current state. It may have been part of the Millennium Park construction. There is definitely nothing coming from the lower level now, as at Stetson the two levels are still separating, and the new Lower Randolph levels haven't yet descended fully. I am not sure if there was something there before. I'd be happy to help; what exactly do you need? You want to show all the walkways of Millennium Park? That might take a while for me to explore, as I'd have to park my car somewhere and walk them. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you change your mind, I'll be happy to help. That template is a great idea&mdash;though unfortunately it looks like they decided to delete it so I probably shouldn't use it now. It's too bad because I like it and I would have voted to keep it. The and  combination they say to use instead is not nearly as good, because if you're a random user who doesn't already know about Commons it doesn't explain why the image might be deleted. I don't like it at all. Maybe I'll probably bring it up again in a few weeks or a month. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's amusing that I get an article-length warning when I edit just this section. Anyway, yeah, 2–1 isn't a very clear vote; I added some comments there. I hope they keep the template; I may want to use it again in the future. Of course if I plan to use an image I'll upload it straight to Commons, but if I have a bunch that I don't think I'll use or maybe just use one or two, I would prefer to upload them to en and just move the ones necessary to Commons later. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for fixing my image link. I hope you liked the pictures&mdash;I figured they would make a good addition to the articles. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain, but I suspect you are correct. While Lower Wacker does elevate after Michigan, it doesn't seem to rise enough to create room for a new level. It's hard to tell while driving. I'll see if I can wander over there next week and take a better look. And you're right about the images; I have to finish putting them on pages anyway. That's another task I'll add to my to-do list. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's true&mdash;I didn't think about that. Although there are some that I don't think would ever be useful, like the ones I took to demonstrate the connection between Harbor Drive and Lakeshore East. I took a few new pictures today, although I don't know how useful they will be. Image:South Water Street (service level).jpg is facing east towards Columbus, and you can see the upramps. Image:Chicago River from Michigan Avenue (closeup).jpg I took because it looked cool and I thought it might add to Wacker Drive, although it already has many pictures (there's also a wider-angle picture&mdash;Image:Chicago River from Michigan Avenue.jpg). Oh and you're right; the upramp to Columbus has a sidewalk on the right. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chicago streets (cont.)
(Starting a new section because the old one was getting out of hand) Your idea of a Commons page is good. I like the images I took today but I really don't have a place to put them. I stuck one in Wacker Drive but if you think it's too cluttered, take it out. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Chicago top down view.png
I've got a whole lot of suggestions for improving this image; they're extensive enough that I'm not going to post them on FPC, for fear of overwhelming the page. I'll watch this page, so please make any reply here. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 17:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the comments; I'll respond below. --SPUI (talk) 18:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The pink background is somewhat odd to my eye. Is there a reason why it was chosen in particular?  (I know literally nothing about Chicago.)  I do understand why you wouldn't want a plain white for Image:Chicago all levels.png, since the streets themselves are white in that image.  I'd prefer, for example, a beige background (say, #ffffec), and certainly something more desaturated.
 * Yeah, it was a fairly arbitrary choice - I'll play with other colors.
 * The crop is too tight; I'd add fifteen or twenty pixels of background color on all four sides.
 * The "Triple-decker streets in Chicago" caption is a bit informal. Unless this is how they're commonly referred to, I'd prefer "Multilevel streets in downtown Chicago", per the image description.
 * I have no idea how they're commonly referred to; it appears most people just shrug and accept their existence. The current caption is more accurate than "Multilevel streets in downtown Chicago", since this is the only area of three-level streets, but not the only multilevel area.
 * Perhaps "Three-level streets" then? "Triple-decker" makes me think of sandwiches.  :) &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * The side view in the legend could use black edging like on the map itself.
 * Hmmm, that would seem to imply that it's a top-down view. If it was a true side-view of the map, everything would be black. It seems less misleading the way I have it.
 * Aha. You're right; it's more accurate the way you have it. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Slightly more space between different items would make the legend clearer. (Not between different labels for the side view, or different lines for the address numbers/scale, but between former roads and pedestrian/bike areas and one-way traffic and address numers.)
 * Understood.
 * It's not clear at first glance that the 800/500 scale refers to address numbers. More separation between different items, as above, would help; so would centering the "340N" vertically.
 * An explicit scale relating to visual distance instead of address numbers would be helpful.
 * I tried that but couldn't find enough useful information to make the scale. I'll try a bit more.
 * "Bike" should be spelled out to "bicycle".
 * The purple cross-line you use to represent fences should be placed in the legend, not labelled individually in the map proper.
 * I'll leave it labeled as well since it's easy to miss otherwise.
 * The thanks and public domain notice are metadata, and more properly belong in the image description, or (much) smaller and in the corner. Since you're releasing the map into the public domain anyway, there's nothing to stop someone from removing them entirely; this seems less likely to happen if they're less obtrusive.  The main legend should move lower to compensate.
 * Heh, that was going to be my argument (that someone could remove them if they don't want them).
 * The "no southbound access from Lake Shore Dr to Randolph St" is redundant with the map itself. If it stays, I'd make it smaller (about half its current height), rotate it 45 degrees clockwise, and place it under the northbound arrow on Lake Shore Dr.
 * Good idea - I had originally added that before I showed the Randolph interchange.
 * The underpass (?) notation used along the grey pedestrian area labelled Wacker Dr in the upper right should be used consistently throughout the image or not at all.
 * I added that because otherwise it's not clear what the paths cross at grade, and what they go over or under, since they're not colored.
 * Speaking of which, does "Wacker Dr" really refer to that pedestrian area, or is it the yellow road? If the latter (which I now strongly suspect, due to the Wacker Dr label I only just now noticed in the lower left), it should be placed above the yellow street for consistency, or at least between the two.
 * I think I'll remove that label and move the one west of it closer to compensate.
 * Similarly, is Lakefront Trail grey (which is what it very much looks like) or red (which is what I suspect)? If the red street is also Lake Shore Dr, it could use a second label at the southernmost part, after the middle level stops.
 * Lakefront Trail is the multi-use path at the yellow level. LSD is the double-decker street; I'll consider another label.
 * After looking at this map and taking notes and writing the above for half an hour, I'm only just now realizing that the different levels shown in parallel are actually above each other (instead of offset a bit, as shown) and named the same. This should certainly be made clearer, though I'm not sure how just yet.
 * I'm not really sure either; I was hoping the side view would make that clear.
 * Despite the appearance of the above criticisms, this really is a very good map of what is obviously a very complex and confusing area. It's only my concerns about clarity that keep me from supporting this as a featured picture, and even as it is, I won't oppose it. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 17:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'll post here (or on your talk page if you'd prefer) when I upload the new map. --SPUI (talk) 18:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A notice on its FPC subpage would probably be best, if only as a politeness to those who voted to support the current version. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Chicago streets
Thanks for your message on Commons, I just saw it when I went to add some captions for photographs. Good luck in FPC, but it looks like you'll easily get it. It is a beautiful diagram. I'm only going to be in Chicago for the next few months, and only sporadically in downtown at that, so I wanted to check to see if there was anything else I could do for you before I move. Checking on any roads, any photographs, that sort of thing. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)