Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 4

Templates specific to exit lists
There are a few templates floating around that are specific to this project... can someone more familiar with them add these to a "Templates" section of the project page? Thanks! I'm specifically looking for the "this exit list is nowhere near complete" template. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the template you are referring to no longer exists, clean up tags have been moved to the talk page and incorporated into the project banner and/or to do list. --Holderca1 20:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Europe
Does the exit list on Bundesautobahn 12 look good? I made it as a test of applying this to Europe. --NE2 10:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Does Germany not have anything comparable to counties? Does 12 not pass through any municipal limits? —Scott5114↗ 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the shields and links on the overlap terminus colspans?
The shields are fine when we're listing the exits, but the colspans that say "west end of I-69 overlap" are prose. We wouldn't go putting in shields in the middle of a paragraph of text, so why here? It already stands out with the different color and bold. And the links here are almost always going to be redundant, since the row is just above or below the actual exit for the route. --NE2 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 01:18, 08 October 2007 (GMT)
 * How about if it's not broken, don't fix it? If you're making an exit list, it's up to you. But no need to go around changing everything that's already there.  -- M PD T / C 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is kind of "broken" to have shields in the middle of text. Anyway, in this case, the images and links were added. --NE2 03:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a problem. But to all his own. -- M PD T / C 03:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say drop the links (redundant), but keep the shields. The colspans are overall part of the table (IMO) so comparing them to prose in paragraphs is like comparing apples to fireplaces. —Scott5114↗ 04:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scott on this one. As an aside, I guess I was the one who started the colspan concurrency method; the irony of that is that I never use that method anymore. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * However, I agree with NE2 about the fact that the images placed in the colspan concurrency are used inappropriately, and should be replaced with prose. Why not just drop the colspan concurrency method altogether and follow what's being done on junction lists?  O 2 (息 • 吹) 22:11, 08 October 2007 (GMT)
 * I still don't think there's anything wrong as-is, but like many things, if it's done, it's not harming anybody. If we want to re-open this whole issue, I suppose we can.  But with all the other stuff that needs to be taken care of, this just seems a little silly. -- M PD T / C 23:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I started the "[[Image:Illinois 25.svg|20px]] Illinois Route 25" shield-and-route-in-text thing, and I was pretty sure it was for legibility purposes in large blocks of text. Which naturally extended down to small chunks. :-D &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How much "wiggle room" does a state have?
See User talk:NE2 and User talk:Imzadi1979 for the introduction. Imzadi1979 claims that M-39 should use template:MIint. Now, ignoring what WP:MISH actually says - that freeways should follow the exit list guide - if MISH required use of the intersection template, would it override the exit list guide? --NE2 07:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now here is my thoughts. Because M-39 is not a freeway for the entire route it should be using the intersection parts where it is not.  When it is a freeway it should use the exit list per the freeway setup but combined into one full list.  IE a row break to show that it is an expressway in parts and a freeway in other parts.   That means I consider it to use the MISH project definations.  A different route, M-6, should follow the freeway exit list since it is fully a freeway from start to finish.  So to make it more clearer, Exit Lists are for Freeways per California State Defination.  Intersection Lists are to be done per State Guidelines on non US Highway routes.  US Highways should be all the same wether its exit lists or intersection lists.  --Mihsfbstadium 08:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you put exit numbers in an intersection table made with Template:MIint? --NE2 10:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said it should be setup as a merger IMHO. Now does that form allow it not really but it does provide a basis for what should be included.  You just have to reset the number of rows if needed for the expressway/road for the intersections in the exit list table.  Its easier done than said hehe.  --Mihsfbstadium 17:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying, can you show me an example? --NE2 02:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay take the exit list designated and combine it with the setup of the intersection list. All you should do is look at the info that the the intersection provides and split it into the rows that would be needed then reduce it down when you only need to do the exit list.  There is no example because I am trying to tell you how it should be handled for state routes.  Along with the fact there is very few state routes in michigan that have both freeway portions and/or local roads, expressway portions. --Mihsfbstadium 04:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand. Does template:MIint support an exit number column? --NE2 04:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not without having it not be the right format. From what I gathered an exit list that offers the miles instead of exit number would work for the most part along with the colors and sutff I have missed after a quick glance.  For states outside of Michigan that is pretty much already accomplished and would require a mild merger of the column into one instead of mile and exit number.  --Mihsfbstadium 05:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still can't make sense of what you're saying; are you suggesting dropping the exit number column? --NE2 05:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what Mihsfbstadium is trying to say is to merge the two tables together. While I can't speak for him, this may help: And so on. Note that I'm making the above stuff up, but it may make Mihsfbstadium's comments clearer. Hope this helps.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 19:51, 11 October 2007 (GMT)


 * Its pretty close, it would have miles for the intersections and exit numbers for the exit list. The exit list is for the freeway portions only.  The intersection would be for all other parts of the route.  Then the color would be used in only the intersection portion.  The rest of it would have zero color.  It should be setup using the same columns for the two diffrent style of lists.  I dont have them memorized nor does it take too much effort to just look at each one and redo the column headings inside of the table for the freeway or non freeway portions.  I think doing US 31 in Michigan in this manner should help out a lot in seeing what it would look like.  Since it would go from freeway to intersection to freeway to intersection to freeway then to intersection style.  --Mihsfbstadium 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for clarifications
I'm proposing that the following be made clear in the guideline. Note that some of these disagree with the existing examples; think carefully before commenting.

Periods only after sentences
Unless text forms a complete sentence, do not put a period after it.


 * I thought this was obvious, but the examples disagree. There's something similar in the MoS for image captions, but I can't find it right now. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

All shields on the left side
In the destinations column, shield images should all be to the left of the text.


 * Personally, I think this looks cleaner; it's also necessary when a bannered route is included, so the banner can be aligned. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

General format
The format in the destinations column should be [shields] [route numbers and to/directions] (street names, after the routes they apply to, as well as unsigned routes) – cities and other non-street destinations. Unsigned routes should not have shields, and should always be mentioned in parentheses. For example:
 * , Mt. Rainier National Park, National Capital
 * In this example, only SR 5 is named Main Street; SR 7 is unnamed. SR 124 is unsigned.
 * Broad Street (OR 569) – Portland City Center
 * In this example, OR 569 is not signed.
 * In this example, OR 569 is not signed.


 * This matches template:jct, which seems to have been accepted, and is an expansion on the above. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good clarification to me. —Scott5114↗ 05:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So for "unsigned", you mean like no actual shield ever, correct? Not just not on the exit signs?  For example, an Interstate 595 shield would not appear with US 50 shield on the Capital Beltway's exit list, but rather "[[Image:US 50.svg|20px]] US 50 east (I-595 - Annapolis, Bay Bridge"?  I agree with that.  -- M PD T / C 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: How would we treat cases where the exit ramp itself has an unsigned designation? Also, I assume this means that "to" should not appear in between shield images even if it does on signage? --Polaron | Talk 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do it as ; SR 146 is the ramp to SR 76 west (though it's actually now signed so this example is no longer current). --NE2 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actual example: I-95 in CT at Exit 38. The exit signage says [[Image:Connecticut Highway 15.png|20px]] Merritt and Wilbur Cross Pkwys. The connection is via the 1.8 mile unsigned SR 796 (aka Milford Parkway). Another example, I-95 in CT Exit 53. Signage says [[Image:US 1.svg|20px]][[Image:Connecticut Highway 142.png|20px]][[Image:Connecticut Highway 146.png|20px]] Short Beach. The connection is via the 1-mile unsigned SR 794 (aka Branford Connector). Should these unsigned designations be listed at all? I would understand a hidden Interstate designation but these are simply too minor to be put in the table in my opinion. A short blurb in the Notes column is probably better here. --Polaron | Talk 17:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the understanding that listing an unsigned designation isn't necessary if the designation doesn't matter (as Polaron commented above re minor state routes). -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For readability, the format when a "/" is required needs to put a  non-breaking space before and breaking space after the slash, to prevent the material from being so run together. It also needs a non-breaking space between the icon(s) and the text that follows it/them, and non-breaking spaces between the characters of any of the piped names that would othewise have normal spaces between them ( rather than  ), to prevent line breakage that renders the material harder to read (this is why, per WP:MOSNUM, measurements and their units are also nbsp'd, e.g.  ):


 * Virginia 5.svgVirginia 7.svg SR 5 east (Main Street) / SR 7 north (SR 124) – Ballston...

This means that jct/shield and any related templates will need upgrades to handle the nbsp needs. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be spaced out. Things like Oklahoma State Highway 24/Oklahoma State Highway 59 are all together because, at that particular point, they're the same thing. To cut down on large blocks of text, omit the highway designation as needed (Oklahoma State Highway 24/59). —Scott5114↗ 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We usually abbreviate the designations (like US 14/16/20), thus saving more space in the first place. Spacing with slashes and such are not needed at all.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 23:32, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Wasn't quite my point; when readability is a problem they should be spaced; the examples you gave are much more readable with unspaced slashes than the one I gave. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * NB: I may have overused spacing of slashes in the examples; some of them probably were clear enough without it. I'm actually going to try to address the underlying matter at WP:MOS, since the issue is not at all one of what ELG says, but rather hard-to-parse slash-delimited phases generally. ELG is a "test case", basically.  I've made the clarification to MOS; we'll see if it sticks (if it's still there tomorrow it probably did; changes to MOS that aren't agreeable usually get reverted rapidly with good explanations for why). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So nbsp should be added in the following cases? It should not be hard to modify template:jct to do this. --NE2 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (note: see below for implementation)
 * If there's a direction or a street name right before the slash, add nbsp before and after it
 * Between the abbreviation and number
 * Between the shields and text
 * But not between the number and direction


 * What about states like Florida that give hidden designations to interstates and US routes? I have generally been leaving them off the exit lists entirely since they are never signed and just add additional clutter.  When looking at the exit list, does it really add any value to the reader that I-4 is also SR 400?  Sure it is mentioned on the I-4 article, but I don't really think it is needed on the I-75 exit list.  --Holderca1 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure. For an added level of complexity, Georgia signs the state routes, but not on Interstates, only at intersections and on reassurance signs. --NE2 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Only list what's signed
In general, only information that appears on the main signs for the exit (in other words, not the ones saying "Foo Street / USE EXIT 14") should be listed. Exceptions include unsigned route numbers (which should be in parentheses) and possibly names of freeways and other major roads, especially if that road has an article.


 * This should prevent disputes over what to list. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. —Scott5114↗ 05:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this should be on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes those additional signs serve as addenda to the exit signs.  I'd imagine it's cheaper to add a sign saying "Apex / EXIT 134A" than to get a bigger exit sign made up.  Is a street important?  Not really.  A major destination point?  More important than a street.  -- M PD T / C 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say a lot of times the state doesnt list everything that it should. Plus I think seeing shields that normally arent there is not a bad thing.  It shows it being complete versus being incomplete --Mihsfbstadium 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Yellow flag. On occasion I've been including places that are either on secondary, ramp signs (not on the mainline) or quasi-obvious destinations. But I've also set these aside by emphasizing them. See Interstate 80 in Illinois, and YMMV. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is probably the simplest way to go about it. However, any information on secondary guide signs should probably be mentioned in the Notes column. --Polaron | Talk 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed for the main signs. My opinion on this issue regarding the secondary signs is a blend of Polaron's and MPD's - we should determine this on a case-by-case basis, but placing secondary guide sign content in the notes column is a good generic guideline for most cases. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a good source for exit signage or is it hit and miss depending on the state? Some states like Arizona have a pretty good route log, but others I have used unofficial websites to fill in exit list and checked with mapquest/google maps to see if indeed that the road was actually at that exit number.  --Holderca1 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I use Google Maps; you can drag the route and it will tell you what the exit is signed for (I-45 exit 46A, for example). Of course, if you can't get what signs say, you can guess; nowhere in the articles do way say "this is what signs actually say". --NE2 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You might also want to check http://www.okroads.com - Eric Stuve takes photos of damn near every exit along the routes he's taken, but of course he doesn't have the whole U.S. covered.—Scott5114↗ 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just use common sense? A small little town on an additional sign for an Interstate exit?  Probably not worth mentioning.  But if the overhead says "I-77 South; Charlotte" and an added sign along the side says "Columbia; Use Exit 44A" or something like that, that makes sense to me and I don't see what the big deal is.  -- M PD T / C 23:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fewer rows are better
In a simple case of a partial cloverleaf, where there is one exit for each direction, signed as "Bar Street east" and "Bar Street west", the two exits should be combined into one row, with a note in the notes column to the effect of "Signed as exits 5A (east) and 5B (west) northbound". If the exits are technically for two directions of the same road, but they are signed completely differently, it may make sense to use two rows if using only one would be significantly more complicated. If there are two exits that are combined in one direction but separated in the other, and serve two different roads, two rows should generally be used, unless it is felt that one would be simpler and still clear.


 * This does match all the examples. Should we specify whether to use "5" or "5A-B" in the exit number column? --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it works for partial interchanges. Wouldn't advise applying it to full cloverleaves, though. I'd suggest using "5" as the exit number. —Scott5114↗ 05:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel we should separate A and B exits, except when it's as you say, exit 5 southbound and exit 5A (east) and 5B (west) northbound. -- M PD T / C 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree when you are not allowed to turn left on those cloverleafs. It makes it easier to read than to see it in the notes section.  Plus that way if somebody comes up to that intersection it be best to show it as is.  Plus we already have As Bs for multiple interchanges on the same road mile so why do the majority of them when they are fully controlled.  --Mihsfbstadium 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Special exceptions for exits to the same route that are bisected by another exit (see Elgin-O'Hare Expressway). It happens more often than I'd like to think. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is another item. How about we look at the I-196 interchange at Chicago Drive.  That has exit 69 serving both jenison and grandville which sits in Kent County.  But then 69A serves Grandville but the exit ramp when ends on chicago drive is in ottawa county like 69B but thats serves only Jenison.  To top it off the 69C Baldwin street exit serves jenison but will sit entirely in kent county.  Talk about a mess of an interchange.  --Mihsfbstadium 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you put both in the left columns if necessary. I'm not sure that it is necessary here, since I-196 remains east of the border, so it might be misleading to show that it crosses the border. --NE2 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: How would exits with different exit numbers for different directions of the same road (all in a single interchange) be treated? I think a single rule should apply whether the exit numbers are different or only the letter suffixes are different for consistency. --Polaron | Talk 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In distance-based states, exit numbers are determined by where the road crosses the highway, so if the numbers are different, there are two separate roads. In sequential states, they still use A-B, N-S, or E-W, so using two different exit numbers would be an indication that the DOT treats it as two separate interchanges. Do you have any examples? --NE2 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some actual examples: I-84 in CT Exit 51 and 52. Wilbur Cross Parkway Exit 57 and 58. --Polaron | Talk 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Merritt Parkway is a bit of a special case, still having the original exit numbers from way back. I-84... I'm not sure why they did it that way, but it should be split anyway because the south-to-east movements are handled by Route 15. I think in the few cases where this happens we can either use "57-58" as the exit number or split it; we should definitely recognize it as a special case though. --NE2 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The I-84 junction with I-91 I am referring to is the one near the Bulkely Bridge and does not involve Route 15 at all. These are just separate directional ramps from I-84 east to I-91 with different exit numbers for each direction. There are actually quite a few of these in Connecticut. Haven't checked MA or RI yet. --Polaron | Talk 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that exit 51 has all four ramps, but 52 has only two because Route 15 serves the other movements. So to show the correct configuration, we'd need two rows anyway. --NE2 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate my point here as it got lost in the above discussion, it is the interchange configuration that should dicate whether separately labeled exits (whether 5A/5B or 57/58) should be combined into one row or not. The fact that the sequential examples are differentiated by separate numbers instead of by different letter suffixes shouldn't be the main factor. Whether we usually combine or split cases like the Wilbur Cross Parkway's Exits 57-58 above, the same principle should apply to suffixed cases. Whether two exits with different labels are simply sepearate ramps of the same exit or different exits altogether should not be based on the posted exit number. --Polaron | Talk 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with this based on how it's written, as it appears to follow what I've been doing anyway. In the example given in the text up top, the number should be shown as "5". -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed interchanges
In general, proposed interchanges should not be listed, unless they will majorly change the road, and are definitely on track to completion, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project. If construction has started, the interchange should be included, but with a light gray background and a note in the notes column, making it clear that it is not open. A similar treatment should be used for former interchanges that have been permanently removed.


 * This makes sense to me; we shouldn't be adding speculation. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but we generally don't use colors at all in exit lists. I believe that perhaps we should look into a color system identical to that on at-grade junction lists being applied to freeway exit lists. The "No Colors" thing approved at the ELG's inception was aimed more toward the rotating colors for cities. I think. —Scott5114↗ 05:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. The five colors used in the "standard" intersection table are:
 * Crossing, no access: ELG specifically excludes these
 * Concurrency termini: if it's major enough to point out, we can use a rowspan; otherwise we just note it in the notes column
 * Decommissioned: I think the reason this has a color in junction lists is as a sort of "justification" for including that intersection, but every interchange goes in an exit list, so the notes column should be enough here
 * Unconstructed: valid (with caveats above)
 * Closed: valid
 * That gives us unconstructed and closed as the ones that seem valid; I have no preference on exactly what color is used, though the standard "closed" color is very light. Did you notice that the text right there has that background color? Probably not until you read this, at least if you were reading quickly. --NE2 08:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Scott is right on his assumption. If I remember correctly, the "no colors" thing was geared towards colorizing the county/city column.  I think unconstructed and closed (or open sometimes) are valid.  I also think that exits to a tolled-road could be yellow.  My $.02 on that. -- M PD T / C 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say I agree with proposed except when its on the state plans to build it. When it goes to that stage it should be listed.  --Mihsfbstadium 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends. I prefer no colors, ever, but if there are colors and the notes column indicates that an interchange is forthcoming and planned for opening at date X, I wouldn't mind the colors. See Interstate 355, which has a southern extension opening in a month and all the exits are already written out. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't see a need for any colors/shading though; the entry in the notes column should suffice. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No guessing exit numbers
Do not guess exit numbers for proposed exits or exits that, for whatever reason, lack numbers. Unless a reliable source (such as Cal-NExUS) has reported on what the exit number is, do not include it, even if it "makes sense".


 * Obvious application of no original research. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. —Scott5114↗ 05:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I get "backup" on User talk:Mihsfbstadium with respect to this? --NE2 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Yahoo! maps or Google Maps (both now have exit numbers) a good enough source? &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly; however "exit 69C" has not been built yet. --NE2 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, in the particular case, it looks like there's few possibilities, and the most like of which is 69C. So I'd say perhaps the best thing to do in that circumstance is something like "(69C)?" to show that it's not certain but most probable. Of course, the best practice is to open records-request a signing plan from MDOT (which has probably already been drawn up). That will clear up any confusion. —Scott5114↗ 17:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In a case like this, where it's pretty obvious what the likely number is, it should be obvious to the reader too. It doesn't help the reader any to include an exit number that's not official; for a proposed interchange, it's simply trivia, and not very interesting trivia. --NE2 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the FEA document it shows the layout of the new interchange. From what it appears to me is that 69C will probally be the only choice for MDOT.  MDOT uses a milage based exit numbers and as a result they have no choice with 70 being used for 28th Street.  --Mihsfbstadium 18:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100%. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention tangential facts
You should not mention in the exit list that two blocks away is the "medical corridor", or that the intersecting route travels north 27 miles to the only ferry across the Mississippi River. Leave this to the route description or the article on the existing route. Exceptions include former route numbers, especially when the route is not presently numbered. Think about whether the information helps the reader understand the exit list and route it describes or not.

—Scott5114↗ 05:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These usually "bloat" the table; an extreme example can be seen at . --NE2 05:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to comment that its not two blocks away. Rather the medical corridor sits on south side of the interstate in that instance.  Hence its not blocks away but right next door.  --Mihsfbstadium 05:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But the "medical corridor" is not the Interstate. It's a nearby development that could be mentioned in the route description. --NE2 05:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This might be too obvious to even include...
 * Not really; there's the example above, and the "medical corridor" example is actually from the current edit war on Interstate 196. --NE2 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Grand Rapids Medical Corridor on Michigan Street will become an article in the future. For Grand Rapids it is the ONLY thing that seems to be expanding.  Plus a lot money from donations started it from industrial men you would not think would do so.  As a result it is more of a place holder until we can get some more background info.  Plus it is a live event that will take time to get completed over the next decade.  --Mihsfbstadium 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What does any of that have to do with the exit list? --NE2 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If somebody wanted to know where that location is at. You will have to use the those two exits otherwise you will just go right past them.  Plus if it is not signed yet, I think with MSU building a facilty there it will be signed shortly.  --Mihsfbstadium 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What if it's on a brown sign? I'm thinking about the Damen Avenue exit on I-290 in Chicago, which is more or less the direct exit to the United Center. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen "serves" or "access to" in the notes column, such as in Interstate 79. If used sparingly, for major destinations, it shouldn't be a problem. --NE2 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Tangential facts" may be useful in some cases though. We should probably not specify this explicitly and treat each situation on a case by case basis. --Polaron | Talk 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a right way to mention "tangential facts" and a wrong way to do them. The right way is to mention a major destination that isn't included on guide signs (like the example Rob gave). The wrong way is to turn the table cell into an extended route description, which I've seen done in many locations, unfortunately. Yes, this should be decided on a per-case basis, but in most cases, these facts are much better suited for the route description. That's why the section exists, after all... -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion
Please comment on each of these proposals, and whether, even if you don't think they should be actually added to the guideline as text, they should still be applied to the "best practice" examples. Thank you. --NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think these are good and should be considered "best practice" as you said. However, I do not feel they should be added as text to the ELG.  But let's all remember what a guideline is: not law.  There will always be exceptions to a "rule" we make for exit lists, and we need to remember that.  -- M PD T / C 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, sections 1, (possibly) 4, 7, and 8 are too common sense to be listed in the ELG and should just be applied to the examples. This is a guideline, and like most guidelines, there will be cases where a unique situation arises that isn't covered by the ELG. We shouldn't try to cover everything in the ELG; instead, we should have just enough standards so that exit lists will have a consistent feel across articles. I believe adding the results of sections 2, 3, 5, and 6 (for the most part) will help this cause, but I don't feel as strongly for the four I mentioned at the outset. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to apply the changes to the guidelines, and add the non-"common sense" ones to this guide. --NE2 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Guideline rationale questionable
Three problems immediately present themselves here:
 * This document starkly conflicts with WP:FLAG by outright recommending that sign icons be used willynilly, even when they are redundant, distracting and not of any particular use to the reader, which appears to be most of the time. WP:FLAG is not calling itself a guideline yet, but it has already had much more community input than WP:ELG, so this conflict does need to be resolved.
 * This document is clearly the product of a small number of editors with a narrow focus on a particular editing activity that simply does not arise in very many place on Wikipedia at all. It is thus rather questionable whether it should be designated a guideline, and it is highly questionable to designate it a part of the Manual of Style without it either originating in the MOS or WP:MOSNUM and growing to the extent that it needs to be forked into a subpage, or going through the semi-formal proposal process at WP:VPP. I can't find any evidence that either is the case.  As a result, it may be more accurate and practical for this to be designated an essay of the WikiProject that deals with these matters (cf. WP:CUESPELL and WP:CUENOT for similar examples which are written like guidelines but cannot really be considered anything but essays due to their very narrow scope and lack of community awareness or involvement).
 * The recommendations on numerical nomenclature could easily be merged into WP:MOSNUM and those about use of sign icons into WP:FLAG, leaving just the more detailed examples and instruction, that would definitely be an essay not a guideline, on how to properly format complicated examples of the desired usage. That is just the kind of thing that a topical WikiProject often produces; there are many such documents and (rightly) the editors who care about such nuances will use them to format and where necessary re-format instances that need cleanup, while the general editorship does not need to concern themselves with whether they are living up to a very narrowly-focused guideline that probably only an expert on the topic will fully understand in the first place. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to knock anyone's work here, just saying that the rapidly emerging general consensus on what to do with iconic images of flags, seals, signs, etc., is rendering parts of this document rapidly obsolete, and that we shouldn't put guideline tags on things without a lot of discussion and buy-in (such discussion usually favors expanding existing documents over creating new ones and more shortcuts). I'm not slapping a disputedtag or merge on WT:ELG right now, but I suspect that someone or other from WT:FLAG may well do so, because it is recommending usages that most editors who have commented on the matter so far (i.e. since SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)›''' 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Roads are not flags. —Scott5114↗ 23:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FLAG does not cover only flags, but any iconic images used in such ways, be them coats of arms, or seals/logos, etc. You actually need to read it before declaring that it doesn't apply. :-) You'll find that bit right in the introduction. It's been there since April, and was part of the core rationale of the entire proposal, even if parts of it necessarily focus on flag-specific issues. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, WP:FLAG is still proposed, and it does not start to apply here unless it turns into a guideline.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 23:57, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Even if it were a guideline, it wouldn't apply here. —Scott5114↗ 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See above, Scott5114. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All I can see in the policy is a one-off sentence about applying to other things besides flags, before launching into an in-depth discussion on the use of flags. This policy is all well and good for flags, but highways are a decidedly different use-case, and that's what WP:ELG covers. —Scott5114↗ 03:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * O, this is precisely the faulty reasoning about the nature of guidelines that I brought up in my response to you, below and in user talk. The short version is that the designation at the top of a page really has very little do with anything. Some long-standing guidelines have no guideline (or other) designation at all, such Five pillars.  It's just a template.  Consensus is consensus is consensus, regardless what template appears at the top of the document.  WP:FLAG will have a guideline tag shortly anyway, almost without doubt, so the point is likely to be moot.  Also, the point of this thread was only 1/3 the conflict between ELG and FLAG; the other two points are equally serious.  I don't see any evidence that ELG was either proposed to the community and sought broad input, or was an outgrowth from existing material in MOS, so its designation as an MOS-family guideline is highly questionable, especially given all the above material indicating lack of agreement on much of anything. Let's get real here: This was labeled a guideline only three weeks after it was created and was never edited by a single user other than its initial author.  I think basically one noticed. At most this probably should have a proposal tag on it, to indicate that it is still being worked on, while my third point actually argued strongly for merging it into extant MOS pages, with a detailed "how-to" essay on the gory details maintained by the WikiProject U.S. Highways for the benefit of specialist editors. In any other circumstance I would already either have retagged this with disputedtag or maybe proposal or essay, or actually sent it to WP:MFD for a merge, but I think if I did that now it would come across as punitive due to my being engaged in a dispute on its talk page. (I care at all because, while guideline is just a template, when there is no evidence of consensus behind something labeled a guideline, the template can mislead non-boat-rocking editors into not challenging it even if they disagree with it.) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, ELG standardized standards that had been accepted across USRD for a long time after much discussion (check teh USRD/IH archives). Furthermore, your MOSFLAG thing does not apply here. Your prerogative here is "it's my way or the highway." I never knew that this was what Wikipedia stood for. ELG was never consulted regarding this discussion, and this is a misapplied guideline being forced upon us, at best. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Commentary from User talk:O
Reflexive reversion on the basis that an edit you didn't make wasn't discussed with you is not very wiki of you. It is not required to have a discussion before editing. This is a matter of official policy. I am of course well aware of WP:BRD, but the "R" in that is generally not brought into play unless someone has a substantive objection to the edit (your objection was only that it wasn't pre-discussed, which is a circumstantial objection, not a substantive one), and the burden is logically upon the reverting party to start the discussion as to what they think was wrong with the edit; I note that you have not done so (with regard to WP:ELG, I mean). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There already was a discussion on WT:ELG about some major changes to the guideline. That included what you have added/changed from the status quo.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 23:52, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
 * I read through that. I don't believe I need permission to do something sensible on a page in which progress has stalled, especially a) basic readability formatting, b) WP:MOSNUM formatting corrections, and c) agreement between two conflicting documents (I know that you are under the impression that WP:FLAG doesn't mean anything; I have addressed this at length on my talk page in response to your message there), one of which has far more, and more broad, community buy-in than the narrow and almost unknown other; what template is at the top is of marginal consequence at best, when consistency in advice to our editors is at stake.  Anyway, I will check out the discussions you pointed me to.  I'm not trying to get a pissing match with you (or anyone), and won't editwar with you over any subsequent reversions if the a) are careful, and revert only what you have a substantive issue with, b) identify what that substantive issue is to use WP:BRD as a valid consensus-building mode. "We've talked about this before" isn't a substantive objection; my read of that discussion indicates that it petered out and has just been sitting there, which is a ripe opportunity for someone to be WP:BOLD and get the ball rolling again.  The discussion is also focussed on the concerns of WP:ELG's authors and users, with little regard for how WP:ELG must interoperate with other issues. That's to be expected initially, perhaps, but it shouldn't hinder those issues from being integrated. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm also not going to go and war on the page itself :-) Second, I'd have to partially agree with the MOSNUM fixes, but wouldn't nowrap be easier on the shield/route link part?  Third, I saw your suggestion that shields only should be used to eliminate a so-called redundancy, but it will not work.  If that were to be implemented, it would use Imagemap, which doesn't work with flowed text even with nowrap.  On your talk, you say that technically guidelines don't apply.  However, they're supposed to apply for most circumstances, unless something out of the blue comes up and needs to be dealt with in a different way not specified.  As with BOLD, the original initiator of the discussion (NE2) took some proposed [controversial] changes to the talk page and worked it out before they went live.  You, however, unilaterally made controversial changes to the status quo without any agreement from others.  The reason why nobody else is reverting your changes is because they don't feel like edit warring, and decide to discuss before any changes.  Lastly, I have yet to see any outside input for this.  Maybe there are concerns because of the lack of knowledge of how highway [articles] are structured and what not?  I don't know.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 01:42, 14 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Nowrap would work also; it just seemed easier to me to use &amp;nbsp;. I think that MOSNUM already covers adequately that either can be used for this purpose, so ELG doesn't need to say so, and ELG need not give two equivalent examples, so either way you want it, basically.  I understand that the ELG/MOSFLAG conflict is more complicated than I got into.  I wasn't saying only use them when they are not redundant, but rather that their use as illustrated here is redundant (I'm sure there would be cases that aren't).  All of the objections raised, by editor after editor, at (and before - it didn't get written in a vacuum) MOSFLAG against using flag icons as illustration all over the place for the heck of it, apply 100% equally here (and this is why MOSFLAG's intro makes such a strong point about not taking "flag" literally).
 * I think you misunderstood what I wrote on my talk page. To re-state: I do not believe in your use of the term "apply" with regard to guidelines; guidelines are not laws or injunctions, they are descriptions of consensus-accepted best practices. Something in a guideline, I suppose, can be said to be applicable to this situation or that, but thinking in terms of "this guideline applies" leads one easily to the mistaken assumption that something that is not a guideline doesn't apply, because it doesn't have a guideline tag on it, or that something that is a guideline always applies.  This is a mistaken notion of the nature of Wikipedia guidelines.  The main point I was getting at is that ELG is unknown and will remain unknown to virtually everyone on Wikipedia, because it applies to such a narrow circumstance that only specialists care about it, while MOSFLAG has been the subject of a great deal of intensive and broad development by the editorship in general, as it has broad application; it thus represents a broad consensus, and whether it has a guideline tag on it or not yet is really of no consequence.  I.e., this isn't a "my guideline trumps your proposal" question at all.  The matter is one of whether generally "applicable" (that word again...) consensus on what and what not to do with little icons of this sort should be ignored just because these happen to be road signs instead of flags, or company logos, or whatever.  I think it's a difficult task to argue for a special exception to our general WP-wide sense that such images should not be added to the middle of a sentence in general prose, and that they should not appear at all when superflous, distracting, not particularly relevant, non-informative or serving simply as decoration.  At any rate, in my talk page post I was emphatically not arguing that one should ignore guidelines, which seems to be what you thought I meant; rather, I mean that whether something is labeled "proposal" or "essay" instead of "guideline" doesn't make any difference if the contents of the document accurately describe consensus on the topic the document is about, since that's all a guideline is in the first place.
 * Re: "Controversial": WP:BOLD exists for a reason: Being afraid to make changes that could turn out to be controversial is a hindrance to open editing and development. We have WP:BRD as a counterpoint to prevent everyone "being bold" against everyone else "being bold".  Of course I made changes without getting permission first.  That's how Wiki works.  They did not appear to me to be controversial (and logically should not be).  The fact that some found them controversial and we now have a controversy is no big deal. B, R now D.  You can't pre-emptively say "you can't edit this because it will be controversial"; whether it will be controversial or not is generally indeterminate until after the edit is made.  I objected to the intial "R" because the reverts were wholesale and not adequately justified, but we now have an open discussion on all of it, so hurrah! BRD works.
 * I don't see it as a matter of "how highway articles are constructed"; someone could make a similar argument, that articles about wars should have lots of little flags all over them interspersed throughout the text every time a country is mentioned, or that articles about CD sales and pop charts should have icons of album/single cover art every time a song is mentioned, and the "you must be kidding" response you're getting would be the same. There isn't anything sacred or magical about highway articles.
 * The "The reason why nobody else is reverting your changes is because they don't feel like edit warring" point: So, you are psychic now? >;-) Perhaps some people are not reverting because they are thinking about this.  Anyway, I've said my piece.  WP:MOSFLAG is a solid, stable proposal-on-the-verge-of-guideline, my logic is explained, and has nothing to with whether I like roadsigns or you or this document, it's about consistency.  If people revert me, then down the road either others will restore the same points one way or another, or I was wrong. &lt;shrug&gt;. Not a big deal to me either way.
 * PS: Above, you appeared to be intending to link to something at "[controversial]" and "[articles]" but didn't get around to it; I'm not sure if those examples were going to be important. I think I understand you fine with out them.
 * —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Shields
Whoa... whoa... whoa... I almost tl;dred the above. But I got to thinking... do we really need the shields? Sure, they look nice, but they really are decoration. I've noticed a few exit lists with a note at the top saying "shields are used at junctions with other Interstates"; was this from a time when shields were being added? But I don't see where WP:FLAG applies, when its actual arguments are based around issues of nationality and which one to use. It should be noted that one of the above proposals that looks likely to pass will place all shields at the beginning of the row, so there won't we anything like I-95 /  I-495, except possibly in the overlap colspans (which I disagree with). In other words, the shields are not sprinkled throughout the text; they are only in specific places within the exit list table. (If you need an example, see Interstate 35E (Minnesota); the only shields are in the infobox and the exit list.) To the highway editors: don't panic, guys; he may have come out of "left field", but it's not like he's saying we should delete the articles or anything. --NE2 06:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I never suggested that every single thing in WP:FLAG applies here; that would indeed be silly. Please see the intro of WP:FLAG; it should be clear from context that the general advice (i.e. don't add icons to general article prose, don't add icons where they are not helpful, don't add icons simply for decoration purposes) are what's applicable. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)  PS: Oh, and I am totally not suggesting deleting any articles. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the reasoning behind WP:FLAG, which seems to be in part based on the number of edit wars over which flag to use. I definitely agree that shields should not be used in prose; I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. Whether or not the shields in infoboxes and exit lists are purely decorative is not an easy question to answer, and the answer is probably "sometimes" or "maybe". When dealing with fair use, they definitely are decorative. But we can get around that if necessary with similar free images ([[Image:Quebec Autoroute 20.svg|20x20px]]). But the bar is much lower with nonfree content; here we're talking about whether putting shields at the beginning of the row helps the reader. I honestly don't know. Traffic engineers have found that it's better to use a shield than text, but that's at highway speeds, and is in place of, rather than with, the shield. (We need the text because there are articles about the roads to link to.) Shields are usually designed such that different types can be easily distinguished; on Interstate 80 in Ohio you can look down and easily see which junctions are with Interstates (the red, white, and blue shield), probably more easily than without the shields. --NE2 10:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Moving the shields to the beginning of the row would be fine. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That does sound like an improvement to me. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:USSH, bias
Another problem here is that much of this material and that of WP:USSH should merge, since they overlap in scope. Meanwhile this document is purporting to be a general style guideline about highway exchange handling when in fact it does nothing but address the US case, as if highways did not exist in Canada or England or India or where ever. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say here and at WT:MOS that ELG, for all that it sports a guideline tag, seems rather too embryonic, and that it comes across as if it were developed in a vacuum without relating to other purported guidelines. The overall idea of having the related WikiProject(s) advise on consistent formatting/notation style is quite sensible, but the implementation tactics have been rather, well, sideways, and the implementation strategy doesn't seem to exist, thus all these issues. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Other than the the use of "state highways", I don't see any U.S.-specific text here. Sure, the examples are all U.S. roads, but that doesn't mean they can't be applied elsewhere (List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario), Bundesautobahn 12). I would definitely support adding international examples. --NE2 10:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) In fact, SMcCandlish is correct. A quick glance at the text reveals the following, obvious, non-exhaustive examples: "For Interstates that span multiple states, the exit list should be broken up by state.(section 2)"

"When linking to state highways, a commonly-used abbreviation for that state should be used for the displayed text for the link. In cases where ambiguity is possible, such as an exit at a state line that serves two state routes in two different states, then the state's official two-letter abbreviation as designated by the United States Postal Service should be used for the displayed text for the link to eliminate any ambiguity.(section 2.2)"

"Shields that are square are to be 20px in width. Shields that have a different shape are to be 20px in height, regardless of shape. For most three-digit shields, this requires the shields to be 25px in width.(section 2.3. In fact this section is meaningless for the UK situation, and may be so for other countries.)"

Finally American English terms are routinely used throughout without any regard to whether non American English speakers will even understand them.

If it were an article, it would certainly be a justifiable case for a Template:Globalize tag. That it is supposed to be part of some MOS makes it even more urgent to globalize it. DDStretch   (talk)  10:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because this guideline was originally developed in WP:USRD project space before it was moved here. Would support globalization, but there aren't many roads editors outside the United States (and Canada), and when I left a note on WT:MWY asking them to take a look at it, nobody replied. —Scott5114↗ 10:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK; I missed those. The "mile" part also needs to be fixed; this does seem to have been hastily rushed out. Can you point out some of the U.S.-specific terms? --NE2 11:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I rewrote it to remove the obvious bias. The only term that stood out was exit/junction; are there others? --NE2 11:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not the best person to ask. You could try inviting some of the members from WikiProject Motorways again to assist in this task. That covers the motorways of the UK (note the British English term). You might also like to invite recent editors of other classes of roads in the UK, such as editors of A1, A500 road, etc, which contain links to other road articles. List of motorways in the United Kingdom, and Great Britain road numbering scheme may also be useful sources of specific editors to invite.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Motorway" is the British equivalent of "Interstate", not freeway. Anyway, we did ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorways. --NE2 12:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By no means should USSH and ELG be merged. They serve vastly different functions. Before proposing outlandish proposals, please become more informed about the topic. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK... so this went haywire and then suddenly stopped. Why? --NE2 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this got so heated that about the only proponents to a change just shrugged and moved on. We should too.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 22:15, 15 October 2007 (GMT)

Glossary
To assist those wanting to globalize this, I've put together a /Glossary. Hope this helps. —Scott5114↗ 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

globalizing
I've tried to suggest a more global approach before. Maybe it is appropriate to bring this out of the archives for wider comment from people outside the USRD project.

worldwide applicability
Since it has been moved out of the USRD project space, combined with the recent change indicating it applies to highways around the world, I think it is appropriate to discuss more widely the standards. Because different countries do things differently, there needs to be a rewriting of the guide to use more generic terms, and also a relaxing of the guideline itself. I'm opening the discussion here to see what others think about how to re-write this for worldwide applicability, or if it should be explcitly stated that this guideline applies only to the U.S.

Currently, we have columns requiring "County", "Location", "Mile", "Exit number", "Destinations", and "Notes". There is also a note about breaking up the list by state. Now, many countries do not have an intermediate administrative subdivision similar to county and that needs to go. County and location are essentially indicating where the exit/junction and can, in principle, be combined as just "Location". The U.S. situation will then be just a special case. "Mile", obviously, will become "km" in many countries. This might even be labeled "Distance from terminus" or something similar. "Exit number" is generally just a label for an exit. Some countries use "Interchange name" or "Exit name" instead of using an exit number. Some have both a name and a number. "Destinations" goes by what signage indicates so that is ok. "Notes" is also ok.

In short, my opiniion is that the required columns should be: (1) Physical location of exit; (2) Distance of exit from some reasonable point (the milepost or kilometerpost); (3) Name of exit (usually the exit number in the U.S.); (4) Destinations (as indicated by signage); (5) Notes. Any reasonable variation, including using a separate County column for the location, or using a different label for "Location" such as "Municipality", should be deemed as within the guideline.

The section on "State highway link appearance" obviously does not apply worldwide and needs to be removed or changed. Finally, we would need examples from different countries, not just from the U.S. Also, breaking up by states (or primary country subdivisions) might not always be useful for other countries as many expressways outside the U.S. are administered nationally or by a single private corporation, even if they span multiple states/provinces/etc.

--Polaron | Talk 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of the changes that I've made? For international examples, I believe the only non-Canada ELG exit list that currently exists is Bundesautobahn 12. --NE2 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks generally reasonable. I would definitely de-emphasize the county column as a separate column though. This is essentially part of the location of the interchange and should be made as a special case for larger countries. The exit number should be "exit number and/or exit name" as I suggested above since some countries use names only without numbers. --Polaron | Talk 16:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't we all save a lot of time and effort and just change the name to "Manual of Style (North American exit lists)"? -- M PD T / C 18:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've written an example of the section of the M6 motorway from j21A to j30 in Cheshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and Lancashire in England. Please comment or edit as needed. (Disregard the missing not-shields.) —Scott5114↗ 00:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't really looked at the UK example yet, but on a sidenote, on one thing that stands out about it, does someone want to go create some SVGs? -- M PD T / C 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do we need images, when it's just text in a colored box? --NE2 08:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because only a roadgeek would have Transport installed on their computer.—Scott5114↗ 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only a roadgeek would care if it's the "right" font :) --NE2 08:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the purpose of including the shield in U.S. exit lists is to provide a (fairly) accurate image of how the route is marked...even if it's a colored coloured rectangle in the UK, we should still do that. People have already made PNG UK shields, so apparently more than one person thought of this. In any case, you need to find the UK project and talk to them about it, or else bring it up at WT:HWY or something. —Scott5114↗ 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up on IRC last night, but why are WE (the US editors) making exit list guides for other countries? Let's make sections, one is a North America section for US and Canada, and maybe we can make a UK section, but I don't feel I'm at all qualified enough for that. Then when other countries decide they want exit lists, they can make their own section, too. The US case will not work for every country that has expressways or freeways. -- M PD T / C 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We might as well make sections for different states. If it's in fact a freeway, the general location/exit split will apply. --NE2 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * People are threatening to throw out ELG (or at least its guideline status) if it's not globalized. UK already has exit lists, but they're not ELG-standard. Believe me, I'm not going to sit around applying ELG to other countries' roads, but in order to ensure ELG's survival, we have to globalize it, and the people complaining that it's not globalized are refusing to do it. —Scott5114↗ 20:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In my case, I don't know how to globalize it, since I have never paid too much attention to these matters (I don't even have a license enabling me to drive a car, for example.) Not knowing how to globalize it does make sense together with raising the issue of globalization, by the way, since it is one matter to be able to recognise a problem, and quite another to know how to solve it.
 * In fact, the problem can be solved another way: change the name so that the guideline restricts itself to the US case. :::The underlying problem is that the guidelines were originally conceived largely using the US case as a basis. You are perhaps now in the situation of realising that this raises some difficulties. What would have been better would have been to gathered as much information about how such junctions (I use the UK term) are signed in other countries. From that, a basic set of common features (perhaps with different names) could be derived. Then, a layer of country-specific customizations could have been built on top of that. It is the way I would have chosen to develop it, based on my own experiences of doing roughly similar things both on and off wikipedia. For practical, advice, I would take what has been done so far, change its name, and recognise it as being a good form of information gathering about one country. So, you now need to get information, either by yourselves or persuading others who know about other countries' road junctions to contribute to that: you already have a start with China and the UK and possibly others. Then you need to see if common features exist using a combination of Abstraction and comparison so that a common, underlying core set of common features could be worked up into a guide that can be customized for the specific countries.
 * Now, it wasn't me or anyone else who initiated writing these guidelines, and being able to comment on them doesn't require any of us to actually "fix them" as in globalize them. To use a legal catch-phrase used in the UK: "Those who propose must dispose.", and it falls to those who proposed them as international guidelines to have a greater obligation to do something about it. As I've said, I certainly don't have the skills necessary to do this, as I have no knowledge of road systems in use in any different countries and have never done any kind of reading about them or research into them. My best effort on this project are the suggestions, made above, which you all are, of course free to react to in whatever waqy you want.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why county would have to go, it is optional to begin with, if the country doesn't have a smaller administrative division, then the column wouldn't be there. --Holderca1 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese expressways
As far as I know, some of Chinese expressways' signage standards are directly counter to this guideline. Exit numbers are from east→west and north→south, which go against the south→north/west→east standard already set. There are almost no control cities listed on signage; only the road and its direction(s). Also, I'm interested to see how locations are to be formatted, since China's counties are independent from an urban area, leaving only the province, municipality, or autonomous region as the blanket "county". Furthermore, urban areas, including municipalities, have districts inside them, and for municipalities only: some counties lie in a municipality (Chongming in Shanghai). Based on all this, I want some input on how exit lists in this nature should be formatted.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 02:44, 17 October 2007 (GMT)
 * For regular provinces, couldn't you format it with two columns -- one for the place itself (probably the county-level division is most appropriate) and another for the containing division (prefecture-level division)? For municipalities, you only need a the county-level division (district or county). The same principle should apply to any country: one column for the locality, one column for a containing division. --Polaron | Talk 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I'd thought, but what I am having a problem with are the ones that go through a municipality and a province, with cities en route (Shanghai-Nanjing Expressway, or Hu-Ning Expressway come to mind).  O 2 (息 • 吹) 03:18, 17 October 2007 (GMT)

The general idea is that "location information" goes to the left of "exit information". Beyond that, it depends on how things are done in the country. Does the hierarchy go province &rarr; municipality &rarr; city? --NE2 10:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Please see Political divisions of China for details.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 01:40, 18 October 2007 (GMT)

Nonbreaking spaces
I believe I've correctly applied the changes discussed above to template:jct. However, I don't think this looks right:

Any suggestions? (I know there are two spaces after the slash; I couldn't figure out any way to fix that while keeping the space after breaking.) --NE2 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do we need spaces again? Specifically, where do we need spaces? -- M PD T / C 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We simply don't need the spaces, and it doesn't look right either.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 22:16, 16 October 2007 (GMT)
 * I tend to agree; the spaces don't look right, especially when only some are spaced. I'm going to remove them. --NE2 22:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I added consistent spaces, because otherwise the non-wrapping was causing a problem where long fields just didn't wrap at all. The whole idea is that it's better to have a line break at the slash than between the abbreviation and number or between the number and direction. I looked for a special code that will break the line if necessary without a space, but couldn't find one. --NE2 10:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't think of nowrap?  O 2 (息 • 吹) 01:41, 18 October 2007 (GMT)
 * I tried it but got some other issues with it. Maybe those were unrelated; I'll try again. --NE2 08:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, one problem is that when there's a name in parentheses it should be able to wrap. --NE2 08:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes applied
I believe I've properly applied the changes discussed above to the examples, and in the special-case section. I've also changed the examples to remove the northeast U.S. (especially New York) bias. Please comment. --NE2 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is shading necessary for interchanges that aren't open? We have a notes column for that purpose. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes it a lot clearer that "something's up" with the exit, for instance exit 14A on Interstate 25 in Colorado, which was permanently closed. --NE2 20:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying that argument - someone could easily apply "something's up" to items such as concurrency termini. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really; those are standard junctions for which you don't need to know that the concurrency ends there to understand the list. There was no consensus above on whether colors should be prohibited for closed or future exits, so I changed the guide to reflect that lack of consensus (note "can be used", not "must be used"). --NE2 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need shading to understand the list if the exit is labeled as closed, either. To me, it's clear this discussion will end up going in a circle, so I'll let someone else weigh in. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think shading a exit that is currently under construction is stupid. It doesnt make sense.  Plus we have the notes column to do that for us as TMF has stated before.  --Mihsfbstadium 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:jct
This template confuses me if I'm trying to edit an existing list. It's fine for the initial appearance of the junction, but can it subst'ed every time it's used? &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It can't because of the enormous number of ParserFunctions. You can, however, type the raw junction code in manually; I do it all the time.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 22:14, 26 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Agreed, but there's nothing wrong with using jct. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, subst would be very bad, what do you find confusing, perhaps that can be clarified in the documentation. --Holderca1 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

jct now has the capability of handling the plates for bannered routes. Right now it is only working for TX, started there since they only have plates US Bus and Alt routes. Will be working my way through the other states, getting them functional. As of yet, the TO plates have not been addressed. --Holderca1 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced this will work, but good luck. I would like to request that you don't add TO plate functionality, since those are optional. --NE2 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do you see problems arising? Yeah, after looking at it, TO plates would give me a bigger headache than this has and I don't feel like messing with it, if at all.  --Holderca1 19:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, some states will probably handle it better than others. Simple ones like Texas shouldn't be a problem.  Florida was a little more complicated, but I think I have it taken care of as well.  With having the switch parameter in fromt of it, we can control which states have the function and which don't, if it doesn't work for a particular state, than it will just go about business as it has been.  --Holderca1 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Update on banner plates, I will be doing them in phases, the first phase will consist of states that use square shields for all route numbers and have no state bannered routes and only have bannered US routes. The following states fall under this phase: AK, CO, CT, HI, ID, NV, NM, NC, TX, UT, and WI. If this list is incorrect or there are additional states that fall under this category, let me know. Thanks. --Holderca1 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Connecticut has any bannered U.S. Routes. --NE2 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Banner plate sizes
Should the size of the banner plates match the size of the shield width or not? The issue I found using different widths is it also gives them different heights which in most cases is not noticed, but if they are side-by-side it is.
 * [[Image:Business plate.svg|25px]][[Image:Business plate.svg|20px]] [[Image:US 290.svg|25px]][[Image:US 90.svg|20px]]. --Holderca1 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been using 20px:
 * [[Image:no image.svg|2px]][[Image:Business plate.svg|20px]][[Image:no image.svg|3px]][[Image:Business plate.svg|20px]] [[Image:US 290.svg|25px]][[Image:US 90.svg|20px]]

However, usually US 90 would go first; the second spacer is only needed if there is more than one three-digit shield, or if a business state highway comes after. --NE2 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, we could make wide plates. I've seen a few around.  That would also solve the problem.  I brought this up before, and there seemed to be no real objections; so if there are no objections, I'll try and get to them tonight: how about abbreviated "BUS" and "BYP" plates for these instances where it's tough to read them?  -- M PD T / C 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The norm I've seen in the field was that the latter NE2 showed. I don't believe there are any other ways used regularly. I follow the method NE2 shows  master son T - C 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sortable exit lists
How about exit lists using sortable tables? See Help:Sorting. There are (usually) two directions in every highway, why not view the lists that way as well, say, for example, Interstate 80 in California, that the exits could be sorted from Nevada to San Francisco, in descending numerical order? --Geopgeop (T) 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, this isn't possible due to the "rowspan=" attributes of the county and location columns. While the other columns will sort correctly, the county and location columns will be messed up. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it won't work unless we completely change the format. It's not worth it. --NE2 00:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we include distance?
I was thinking a bit, and I'd like to see others' thoughts about why we include the distance. The only reason I can think of is so readers can get an idea of how far an interchange is from the beginning or another interchange. Are there other reasons? --NE2 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've brought this up before; it's somewhere in the archives. Go through them and search "mileposts" or "mile columns".  That'll give you an idea. -- M PD T / C 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)/Archive 1, but it doesn't really answer the question of "why"; the only reasons there are "because I can" and to clarify which of several suffixed exits comes first (which isn't even true all the time; an exit for a freeway may be before the exit for a local road that physically crosses before the freeway). --NE2 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some instances they don't agree with the mileposts, for example Interstate 17 where the mileposts do not start at zero. You also have the problem of where the mileposts are off due to how they were placed in the first place.  Then you have the roads that don't have mileposts and then the distance only means anything if you start at the beginning of the road.  --Holderca1talk 18:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So what would you say the purpose of the column is? --NE2 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To show distance. -- M PD T / C 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has any other reasons for the column, please pitch in, but the only "good" reason (if you disagree, say so!) has been to show distance. Thus we should show an actual 1:1 distance (possibly with the zero point not at the beginning) and not adjust the figures to the imperfections of mile markers (milepost equations, resetting at county lines). Does this sound reasonable? --NE2 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need it, we have the overall distance, but why do we need the distance to every exit/junction? Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Holderca1talk 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do exit lists at all then? —Scott5114↗ 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a list of notable junctions is needed, but do we need to know down to a hundreth of a mile where they are? If you want to know where exactly the junction is, go to google maps.  --Holderca1talk 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why exactly is a list of notable junctions needed, though? I'm not trying to be irritating, I'm trying to guide your thinking. :) —Scott5114↗ 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The need for mileposts on Exit lists with exit number is not warrented - you already have the exit number and that says enough (whether the exit # is sequential or mile based doesn't matter) If no exit number -then use a resource (such as DOT material or Google Maps) to approximate mileposts.  (do we even need THAT?)  master son T - C 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with everything except the sequential exits; I'd like to know if exit 1 is at mile 7 and exit 2 is at mile 12, etc. That to me is useful.  But to know that exit 1 is around mile 1, and exit 2 is around mile 2, is redundant. -- M PD T / C 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with MPD with the fact that I would like to know if exit 1 is at mile 12 if the state uses sequential exit numbering. However, if there are no exit numbers, then use a reliable source that provides mileposts to at least the nearest tenth.  If there is a state source that provides a more precise source, then by all means, use it.  O2  (息 • 吹) 22:38, 13 November 2007 (GMT)
 * OK cool - then if a column isn't used - don't include it. Otherwise one's gonna wonder why it isn't complete.  master son T - C 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they are notable. I don't know where you are going with this.  --Holderca1talk 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the distance is important, and not just on highway articles; Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney is a good precedent if we need one. What I'm trying to figure out is if there's any reason to list the milepost/postmile if it differs from the actual distance. --NE2 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's in that case, probably not.  O2  (息 • 吹) 04:20, 14 November 2007 (GMT)
 * OK... two examples: Interstate 84 in Oregon and U.S. Route 101 in California. Should these be changed to use the actual distance from the beginning? --NE2 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, I-84, no. US 101...well I can't say I accurately understand California enough to form an opinion on it.  There's no statewide system, just by county?  -- M PD T / C 04:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * CA: no. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not?  master son T - C 04:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Caltrans rarely uses statewide mileage. CA does not use mileposts, except for one 20 mile stretch of freeway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So what would your answer to the initial question be? Why would you say we have the distance column? --NE2 05:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So that our exit lists are more informative - it's not just a junky wikified 2 column list that you can go to Highway Heaven to get. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, and why is the distance column informative? What would people use it for? --NE2 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Why do you ask? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I'd like to know why you think it's useful to give the per-county mileage. Not why you feel it "has to be" done that way, but how you feel that helps the reader. --NE2 05:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It still gives the distances between exits and is still accurate, not using added numbers. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't give the distance between exits in separate counties. --NE2 06:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is unfortunate, maybe a milepost equation should be put in. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But why make the reader go through the extra calculation? If the only purpose of the column is to give the distance, we might as well give it in the format that's easiest to deal with. --NE2 06:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * However, the statewide mileage is not official. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Why do we need to use the "official" figures? The column isn't "official postmile figure"; it's "mile". --NE2 06:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, on most CA lists, the column is Postmile.


 * What I'm seeing here is that there are two issues here that need to be addressed separately: whether mileage should be included (which I believe was already resolved) and whether official or calculated mileage should be used. An hour ago I got a note on my talk page asking about a similar issue. We should have a consensus discussion here to determine what officially is used. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, we could change it to mile :)
 * My proposal is to always use a 1:1 mileage - that is, you should be able to subtract the first figure from the last and get the total distance. If there is a consistent mile-marking scheme that does not begin at zero (I-83 (MD), I-17 (AZ)), we can use it, but we should not follow milepost equations, since the purpose is to allow readers to see the distance. If a milepost equation affects the exit numbers and posted mileposts (I-84), we should note it, but not use the posted miles beyond it. --NE2 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * However, the problem is that California does not follow this system at all. This would be incorrect for California, which does not use posted mileposts except for CA-58. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in no way "incorrect" to say "here's the distance from the beginning of the route". --NE2 07:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is because it cannot be sourced. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What? We are allowed to add numbers; we do it all the time when calculating length for the infobox. --NE2 08:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's only because that's the only option; SPUI always showed his work when he did something like this on the talk page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) It seems to me that the issue with California is that we have everything except one piece: the distance from the final exit to the county line. The last exit could be PM 46.23, and the next exit could be PM 1.55, but we don't know variable X which is from 46.23 to the county line. If that number can be found and sourced (a per-county breakdown from Caltrans, e.g.), then I see no reason why we couldn't add 1.55 to variable X and get variable Y as the total distance. That's like adding distances of an Interstate from all the states and getting a total length. -- M PD T / C 08:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We do in fact have the postmile number at the county line via the bridge log, the same source we use for the rest of the numbers. --NE2 08:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So what would qualify as a reliable source for distance? Especially for states that don't use mile markers. Is Google Maps a RS? --Holderca1talk 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is. Just make sure to get a link showing your calculation though for verifiability. —Scott5114↗ 05:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not agree to the removal of postmiles from CASH articles, to clarify. I suppose I would support statewide mileages being added as well as postmiles, as long as it was made clear that the mileage was unofficial. But one could get a good enough approxamation from the exit numbers.., --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think the benefit to the reader is of having the county-based postmiles? The one reason that's been given for mileage - being able to find the distance between junctions - is better served by continuous mileage. --NE2 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are coordinates included in city articles? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So that the reader can click on them to see a map of the city, or plug the values into a program or device that takes geographical coordinates as input. --NE2 07:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you there? Can you please reply? --NE2 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here, this gives an absolute official location of the exit on the road. (I'm in and out all this weeek). --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How's that absolute location going to help anyone? Someone looking at a map won't be able to use it, and someone on the road is better off looking at the signs meant for use by drivers. If he wants to go by distance, especially across a county line, he'll reset his odometer at a known location. --NE2 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still unclear to me how this is this big of a problem. -- M PD T / C 06:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not "[that] big of a problem", but it certainly seems more useful to measure mileage continuously from the beginning of the route. I have yet to see how resetting at county lines helps the reader. --NE2 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading all this, I have to agree that resetting the postmiles doesn't help the reader as much as using continuous postmiles. Nobody really wants to know the "absolute official location" inside a county; what people mostly want is somewhere in the state.  哦，   是吗？  (review O) 22:55, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
 * However, this will promote inaccurate information. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? If it's the only option for comprehensiveness, then just use the talk page.  No reader would want to do countless postmile equations just to find the postmile in the state; we're supposed to do that.  哦，   是吗？  (review O) 23:48, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
 * What do you mean by that? --NE2 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset) So California's unique - big deal! If we have a source of the modern mileposts - lets implement that and remove the county postmile system. What encyclopedic value would that have to the exit list anyway? —  master son T - C 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Master_son said exactly what I was saying—more clearly. 哦，   是吗？  (review O) 00:32, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
 * The one reason I can think of for including the county-based miles is that some exits aren't in the bridge logs, either because they're too new or because there's no bridge. In these cases, people have reported on what the sign right at the exit says. Assuming this is an OK source (it is being "published" by Caltrans), we can use a special reference tag for those saying what the observed postmile is. We should be putting a reference on those rows anyway, since otherwise we claim that they're being sourced to the bridge log, when they're not. --NE2 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rschen and I came up with something similar off-wiki, by using two postmiles side-by-side, one with the county postmile, and the other statewide. The statewide postmile header would be footnoted in a separate footnote section using the legacy ref and note system saying that the statewide postmiles are not official.  I've seen this utilized on one or two California Interstate articles before (can't remember which).  哦，   是吗？  (review O) 01:32, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
 * I've seen those, and had those in mind from the beginning; I don't see any benefit in including the county-based column, and nobody else has come up with any reasons. --NE2 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the statewide mileage is not official. Besides, what exactly is the harm? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia, not a government printing office; there's nothing wrong with including "unofficial" information as long as it's verifiable. The harm is the extra width caused by the extra column, especially when the county abbreviation is included, and therefore less width for the other columns that do have a purpose. --NE2 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's not verifiable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding numbers from the bridge log is certainly verifiable. --NE2 01:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not by Wikipedia standards. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it is... unless you're calling into question the lengths in the infobox? --NE2 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There, since the US does not use metric (mostly), it is obvious that the calculated numbers are not official (hence the parentheses). Here, we are presenting calculated numbers as official and factual. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What? I'm talking about the calculated length_mi, for example 197 on California State Route 4. --NE2 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There, that is the only option; here, it is not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you backing down from your statement that it's not verifiable? --NE2 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh no... I am not going to back down to an incorrect position. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why can we include it in the infobox if it's not verifiable? --NE2 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no other options. Furthermore, it does not make the incorrect assertion that California uses the milepost system. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "There are no other options" is not a reason to include an unverifiable fact. How does a column labeled "mile" with mileage from the beginning of the route imply that Caltrans posts "normal" mile markers? Should we use the reference marker format in New York? What about states that don't place any markers on non-Interstates? --NE2 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're providing no valid reasons to remove the postmiles. I'm not saying omit the statewide mileage, just as long as we footnote that it's calculated. A reference marker would be like a milepost sign in the rest of the U.S. As for states that don't place markers on non-Interstates, I'm sure that we can find government sources for them, just as we can with postmiles; this is a faulty comparison. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason is that it's excess information that's not needed. Reference markers reset at town lines, and in many states including New York and Virginia, the government sources reset at county lines. --NE2 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Texas doesn't use mileposts on non-Interstates and I have never been able to find any government sources for distances either. --Holderca1talk 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we include distance (Part 2)
Breathe, count backwards from 1,000 and say "bubble" between each number...

First of all, this is the first time I've weighed in on anything really significant regarding the CalState Highways Project. Second, I have a few questions to interject so that they can be hashed out here; 1) Why would CalTrans data from the bridge log NOT be a "verifiable" resource? 2) NE2-- There is no harm in having another column there, unless you are using an old CRT with 640x480 screen rez. Otherwise, it comes out fine, is valuable info, and IMHO, should be there. It helps to break up an otherwise GHASTLY long list into more digestible chunks. 3) Would someone please reiterate what the basic question here is? It's gotten lost way up there on the page... Edit Centric 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is over whether mileage should reset at county lines (California State Route 120), be measured from the beginning (Virginia State Route 40), or have both (Interstate 5 in California). By the way, I have a screen width of 1400 pixels, and some of the rows on I-5 wrap. Other people are using smaller resolutions, especially in third-world countries. --NE2 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do people read the English Wikipedia in third world countries? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure many do. --NE2 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Both. Edit Centric 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that's your opinion on what we should include. I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: what's the distance column used for? Why do we include it? --NE2 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me clarify my answer. IMHO, we should include both, in states where it is applicable (in practice by that state's transportation department) and we can provide a verifiable source for that information, ie bridge logs, state database, etc. As for what the distance column is used for, it depends on the user / reader. Some people could care less about how far or at what mile marker an exit is. Others might find this info far more valuable for calculating distances travelled, improving their knowledge of a specific road, or some other reason. What it boils down to is that as long as we can source it, let's go ahead and include it. As far as people in third world countries reading from en.wikipedia.org, that's doubtful at best...Edit Centric 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't include everything that can be sourced, only what's useful to readers. For instance, we don't include the location of every bridge, only those at interchanges and major water crossings. --NE2 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I get that, NE2. So what are we saying here? You propose getting rid of just HOW many columns in the exit list? County and county postmile, or just the county postmile? Edit Centric 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just the county postmile, since it has no benefit that the state postmile does not provide. This would be just like the tables in any other state. --NE2 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... it's what the state actually uses? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopedia, not a government printing office. --NE2 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So we should base our content on what's useful to the reader. --NE2 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And this content isn't? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a purpose that nobody's mentioned, no, it isn't. --NE2 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(To the left, to the left!) As a reader, I think it's useful. Both. Yes, Regis, that's my final answer. Edit Centric 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What use do you get from it? --NE2 03:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this question. None other than to find the exact and published location in a county, I don't see much use for county-by-county postmiles.  哦，   是吗？  (review O) 03:48, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Postmiles give information about realignments and unconstructed segments that may not be apparent from the statewide mileage. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you let us know - through a source - that CalTrans actually still relies on the county postmiles rather than state mileposts? —  master son T - C 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe they do, though I don't have such a source. Many states use some sort of county-based mileposting internally; New York resets at town lines. --NE2 04:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * a) bridge logs, b) on the freeways themselves. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. We should place information about realignments in the history section and unconstructed segments in the route description, where you don't have to guess to find out about them. --NE2 04:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that there is no one web site with statewide mileage. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you still claiming adding numbers is unverifiable? --NE2 04:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I need to? This website shows the foolishness of this idea. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Your answer doesn't make any sense. --NE2 04:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point, does it matter if they are verifiable or not? You lose too much information when you convert postmiles to mileposts. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's list all the information that county-based postmiles have, as apposed to statewide mileage: Details about realignments, whether recent or not, should be in the history section. As for the county lines, I don't see why that matters. Nowhere else do we list the mileage of each county line, unless there's a major water crossing there. --NE2 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * County-based
 * 1) Distance from the county line, unless there are milepost equations
 * 2) Circumstancial evidence, but no other information, of a recent realignment
 * Statewide
 * 1) Actual distance, across county lines and equations
 * The realignment should be mentioned in the exit list so that one can see visually exactly where the realignment was. Then the realignment should be explained in the history section. Furthermore, California is a unique state in that it is the only state that does not use the milepost. What differentiates it from Nevada is taht Nevada does use statewide mileposts as well as county mileposts. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So how should we mention realignments that are too old to be covered by the postmiles (for instance SR 99 through Fresno), and details on ones that do exist (like what was actually realigned - in many cases it's just a very minor shift away from the parallel rail line to make room for ramps)? --NE2 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The normal way? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean the history section? Good. Now that we've established that that's the "normal way", we don't need to show it in the postmile. --NE2 05:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, no. The normal way is to use the R and the history section when possible. When it is not possible, just use the history section. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since that's only done in California (and only for recent realignments), it can't be too normal :) But really, if the reader even knows what the "R" means, what are we telling him? That the postmile is not in the exact place it was in 1964? This is trivia, not encyclopedic information. An encyclopedic treatment presents all realignments equally. --NE2 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That it was rebuilt. It's your assertion that this is trivia and not encyclopedic information. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That it was realigned (not rebuilt) since 1964, right in the middle of the freeway-building era. --NE2 05:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying there were no significant changes to the freeway system since 1964? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that there were so many significant changes before 1964 that the presence or absence of the "R" is pretty meaningless. --NE2 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It indicates that the route has been realigned since 1964... that's significant as it's between a third to a half of the history of California roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the idea is to show a realignment, we'd give a lot more information by having the year it was realigned. --NE2 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why you then go to history and explain it. Heck, you could even explain in the notes section. But seriously, what is your beef about including both postmiles and mielposts? Some CA interstate articles do it already. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I still say both. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. Edit Centric 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who said it was? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This wasn't even a poll to begin with. 哦，   是吗？  (review O) 05:06, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
 * Edit Centric may have been assuming it was, but I'm not sure. --NE2 05:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * NE2, I'm going to put this in as nice, calm and kind a way as I can; The "both" is just an opinion. Please do NOT purposefully mis-interpret it as a vote, or bring me into a larger debate regarding perceived canvassing. Thank you EVER so much. Edit Centric 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I placed that template is because an opinion, without any supporting reasoning, means nothing. --NE2 05:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a great example of "How NOT to make friends and influence people". So what you're basically saying now is that my opinion means nothing? PLEASE tell me that's not what you meant...Edit Centric 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NE2, he gave his reasoning at the top of this section, just under the last heading. Does he need to repeat it in every post? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What, that it does "no harm"? I've debunked that. --NE2 05:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...which bars him from continuing to have that opinion how, exactly? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with having that opinion; what "put me off" was the combative tone of "That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it." --NE2 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, NE2. You win. I HAVE no opinion. Edit Centric 05:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody's opinion means anything on Wikipedia without reasoning to back it up. --NE2 05:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Supposing your car breaks down somewhere on I-5. What resource are you going to have to locate yourself when calling a friend to pick you up? Just postmiles. Statewide distance won't help you there. Statewide distance is great for calculating distances. Postmiles won't help you much there. This is basically two different ways of presenting the same data. Why not include both? You can get around the "takes too much space" thing with clever formatting. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't really a resource for finding broken-down cars. Why has the New York project never used reference markers in their junction lists? It's probably because the traffic counts give mileage from the county line rather than the town line - and there's never been a problem with adding it up there. Let's wait until somebody can answer my question below before continuing this. --NE2 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point. The two different ways of expressing position are useful for different purposes: the postmiles for absolute position, and the statewide mileage for relative position. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

NE2 - Regarding your inferrence of a "combative tone" in my statement, I assure you that there was none intended. If I offended, then I apologize. I merely meant that I HAD a firm opinion regarding the topic of discussion. Since you have seen fit to illegitimize and negate that opinion, I will refrain from voicing any such opinions in the future. Feel free to do whatever you deem essential to the process. Edit Centric 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I offended you; this did get rather heated. --NE2 06:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about postmiles
When Caltrans makes small realignments, like at, are all the postmiles north to the next county line adjusted? --NE2 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, only the realigned portion is adjusted. Then an equation is used at the point where the realignment ends. (I don't know about that particular instance, but this is the general rule.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the little bumps on SR 99 have equations afterwards, and the postmiles after the bumps are un-prefixed. So either the postmiles after the realignment were moved, or the postmiles do not accurately represent distance. --NE2 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading through, it appears that, given the exact text of a postmile, that maps to exactly one point on the roadway from 1964 until today. In other words, postmiles are never moved without getting a prefix. Therefore, when little "bumps" like on SR 99 are built, the postmiles do not match actual mileage, and we have no actual figure that gives the true mileage. So there goes our main reason for including any mileage figure, county-based or statewide. Even giving the county-based postmile would seem to be misleading if the reader assumes that they are measured based on the current alignment, or rather useless if the reader realizes that they are measured based on the 1964 alignment. --NE2 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For further confirmation, see : "The milepost at a given location will remain the same year after year."] Unfortunately, either equations are not always established when short realignments are made, or the bridge log does not give all equations. --NE2 06:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But if we were adding the numbers for statewide mileage, we'd have similar problems. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just realized that. --NE2 06:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

More confirmation can be seen on California State Route 99; exit 217 is the first of many that does not correspond to the added postmiles (Caltrans rounds the "odometer mileage" to the nearest integer). That PDF claims that the odometer listings are published, but I cannot find them online. --NE2 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the problem is that not all equations are listed in the bridge log; compare with. --NE2 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So then we're screwed, statewide mileage or no, unless we find another source. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah; I emailed Caltrans and asked if they have a list of all equations. --NE2 07:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I checked Interstate 280 (California) on my 12 inch laptop screen and it looks fine. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the dual mileages display correctly, I don't see the issue with having both. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New proposal
I thought about it a bit, and I believe I would accept California State Route 120. If we get full information on equations, or use another source (like Google Maps), we can add a statewide column. Does this look reasonable? --NE2 21:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we agreed to using dual postmiles, since math is easily verifiable without using any sources. Also, why smallify the postmiles?  哦，   是吗？  (review O) 21:15, 04 December 2007 (GMT)
 * That was before I realized that not all equations are included in the bridge logs, so unless we get a source for all equations, we cannot have accurate mileage. The "smallifying" was to make that column not as wide, and make it clear that it's not very important. --NE2 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For missing equations relevant to the current example, see page 20 of ; the 30.670=30.500 and 35.011=35.030 equations are not in the bridge log. Unfortunately, only two of the 12 districts have something like this online. --NE2 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)