Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Navigation archive

Ideas
Like my post in the infobox section, here's some quick hits:
 * All accepted practices discussed at WT:USRD should be reflected here, most notably the standard code for browsing (Interstate, US, 2-letter abbreviation).
 * Precedence order is Interstate, US, State.
 * Bannered routes should not be included in the browse. Suffixed routes should. Use the "spur_of/spur_type" parameter for bannered routes instead. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with the bannered routes though. Otherwise it sounds good. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm flexible regarding the bannered routes - that is, if we can get the bannered routes to display correctly in the browse. The best we can get right now is to make a shield specifically for that bannered route, which is a situation I'd like to avoid. Until the browse row can be redesigned so that a custom shield containing the banner and the route shield is no longer necessary, I think the present system of leaving the banners out, linking to them on the parent page and using the spur_of/type will have to do. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave the banners out. They can have a link to the parent route, but NOT in the browse.  Also, for state browse boxes, some states' (like CA and NY) use "State" instead of "CA" or "NY".  How about redirects to the proposed naming convention? V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the thing. Per WT:USRD, the "proposed" naming convention isn't proposed at all - it's what is now (as of early January) being used in practice. Redirects, however, do exist for most states but making more redirects is (IMHO) not necessary nor recommended. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Definitely agree with this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

browsing question
I am planning to make an article on minor state highways of Connecticut instead of creating an article for each of these where not much can be said about them. This will be about 20% of all the CT state highways. How should the browsing be handled when there will not be articles for some of the routes in the sequence? Should they simply be skipped? Are there other highway projects that have done this sort of thing already? How was browsing handled in those cases? --Polaron | Talk 20:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CASH has done something to this effect on a couple of pages, one being Deleted state highways in California. For the browse, an empty infobox road and a series of browse rows were used to continue the browse order. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just do this:

 This will produce something on the right. Hope that helps.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's going to be 40 lines long (more than a screenful) but I guess that should work. It's just going to look massive. --Polaron | Talk 21:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ordering browseboxes by in US, Interstate route articles
Are we still ordering them alphabetically or by standard direction? (W-E, S-N) •  master_son  Lets talk  21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently by direction, but we could probably open up discussion on it if desired, as I don't think the order was ever written down anywhere. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
So here's the obligatory discussion based on what's transpired on WT:USRD.

Basically, before this subproject started, active state projects generally chose one of two systems to browse through their routes. Most used the current INNA-sanctioned way. That is, state, U.S., and Interstate highways are all included, following the prescribed order. Some, notably Texas, included only the state highways (with the option for separate browsing loops for the Interstate and U.S. highways).

To be honest, both have merits, seeing as each state numbers their highways differently. Some, such as CA, NJ, and WA, do not assign the same number to a state and Interstate highway. (WSDOT goes so far as to refer to Interstate 5 as "SR 5".) Texas doesn't make the same effort – at some point, it may be necessary to include Interstate 69, U.S. Route 69, and Texas State Highway 69 in the browsing order.

Thus, I propose the following compromise. Essentially, it's the same thing we agreed to when we couldn't reach a clear consensus on the exit list guide. Basically, a state can choose to follow either of the two systems, as long as it follows one of the two systems. This should be determined by either consensus or status quo with the individual state WikiProjects. States that don't have their own WikiProject follow the INNA method.

Thoughts? -- NORTH talk 06:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that for now, but we really should adopt a nationwide standard eventually. I'm not arguing the logic presented above, but a counterargument to Texas' numbering method is that NY duplicates numbering as well (I-290/NY 290, US 15/NY 15, etc.) but the INNA-specified browsing is used. Just a note. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe NY shouldn't be then?
 * Although after I posted my original discussion, I thought of a different counterargument. How does the Texas browsing system work on articles like Interstate 20?  Would it go from I-10 to I-27?  That's what you'd think... but look at Interstate 35 and U.S. Route 69, which follow INNA standards.  (Although those were added by someone not part of WP:TXSH.)  Those articles should be changed to be consistent with the rest of Texas browsing, but if that were done it would make the article inconsistent with itself.
 * Thus, I think I reluctantly support making INNA nationwide, but I don't think there's consensus to forcefully impose it on Texas yet. -- NORTH talk 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's what I've discovered. By my assumption, the Texas project has been and would be putting the browse boxes for Interstates and US Routes in their respective "Route in Texas" article.  For example, Interstate 10 in Texas points back to Interstate 820 (Texas) and forward to Interstate 20 (Texas), which ATTM links to the main I-20 page, while the browse box would be left off of the main route pages, since they encompass the entire route across several states.  I had assumed that the browse boxes would run like this, with Interstates in Texas pointing to Interstates in Texas, US Routes in Texas to US Routes, etc....
 * I will also insert a question here. If Texas were to move to the Current USRD INNA standards, would that mean that we would  have the following progression:  I-10 -> SH 10 -> SL 10 -> SS 10 -> FM 10, with possibly adding on Park Route 10 and Rec Route 10 (fortunately we don't have any Interstate and US Routes with common numbers)?  25or6to4 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this would go for all states except Washington, which do it hierarchically.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So we're saying we should include the farm to market roads? I thought we were going to treat them separately, as if they were county routes... -- NORTH talk 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They're secondary state highways, accoring to TxDOT.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 01:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it makes any sense to include FM roads in the browsing order; it's probably a good idea to also use a separate browse order for the loops and spurs. Unless I'm mistaken, a number is assigned to either a loop or a spur, but not both. --NE2 02:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what was I thinking? Anyway, I just remembered the thing about bannered routes: omit them.  And considering what we have here, loops and spurs are considered bannered routes, so orphan all of them from any browses.  Instead, have a see also link to the parent SH.  V 6 0  VTalk ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The best option would be to use the "spur_of"/"spur_type" parameters in the infobox for the bannered routes. Additionally, the argument used above for including FM roads in the browse would force County Route 857 (Monongalia County, West Virginia) to be included in the WV browse, as it is considered a secondary state highway by WVDOT. My opinion is that blatantly secondary state highways (like Texas' FM roads and WV's county roads) should be excluded from the main browse. A browse that includes only the secondary state highways is probably acceptable, though. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are they actually spurs of state highways, or are they a separate numbering used for "minor" routes? --NE2 02:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They're actual spurs.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They're totally separate. Texas State Highway Loop 1 is completely unrelated to Texas State Highway 1 (which no longer exists), and they're certainly not "bannered routes". I think it makes most sense to have three separate browsing orders for Texas: the main one (Interstates, US, and the main state highways), Loops and Spurs, and the Farm/Ranch to Market roads.
 * This is essentially what they have now; we just need to combine the Interstate and US highways into the main loop, and make sure that the /main subtemplate (the one that produces the header row above the browsing) links to the correct list page. (Currently they all link to the main State highways in Texas page.)
 * EC: Uhhh, no, they're not actual spurs. -- NORTH talk 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Instead of changing the main link, we could add the additional links to the /links subtemplate. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good plan. -- NORTH talk 03:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see this over here, so I apologize for jumping in late. I still don't understand the logic for applying one method of browsing to all the subprojects, I understand applying it to some. So instead of having 5 browse loops, Texas will have 3? How would you browse Florida? Florida numbers all of their interstates and US Highways with a state road number, but the catch is, they don't match. SR 8 = I-10, SR 10 = US 90, SR 30 = US 98, etc... would it go like this? SR 8 -> SR 9 -> I-10 -> SR 10? Again, isn't this one of the reasons of having the subprojects is to iron this out at the state level since each state numbers its highways differently. Replying to a comment above, Texas currently does not have any overlap of interstate and US Highways, at least until I-69 gets built, where as a US 69 currently exists in Texas. Anyways, I still don't see why all the states need to browse in the exact same way. --Holderca1 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, where would interstate loops and spurs go? With the main browse or the loop and spur browse? --Holderca1 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interstate loops and spurs aren't included in any browse; they utilize the "spur_of/spur_type" parameter of the infobox. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with that parameter, can you point to me to where it is being used, I have checked two 3di interstates and neither use it, Interstate 464 is in the main browse for Virginia. --Holderca1 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interstate 44 Business (Pacific, Missouri)  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we get it added to the list of parameters at infobox road? I am assuming that there is a loop_of/loop_type parameter as well?  --Holderca1 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no loop_of, here "spur" is used as a general term. All bannered routes use these parameters, regardless of what the banner actually is.  This applies to the business loops and spurs of interstate highways, not the auxiliary (3-digit) routes, thus I-464 is correct to be in the main browse. -- NORTH talk 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so 3di interstates go in the main browse? Now how do they come in the browse order, after their parent route or in numeric order? --Holderca1 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Numeric. -- NORTH talk 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well at least Texas got that one right. --Holderca1 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Florida, by the looks of it (see the bottom of Interstate 10), Florida currently browses using only the SR numbers. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's certainly one way to deal with it.  Florida's definitely a special case (as is Georgia I think) and can probably be given some sort of exception like Washington is, but Texas isn't the same way. -- NORTH talk 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am working on reworking all of Florida's articles, needs a lot of work. I still don't understand the whole combining all I, US, and SH into one browse, I think it makes more sense to seperate them all out in every state.  It would just be more user friendly, if someone want to just browse the interstates of California, then they can, if they want to look at the state highways, just click on the link above the browse to go to the state highways and browse through those.  Having them all together doesn't give them the option other than going back to the main page each and every time.  I really don't understand why things always have to be done the way it is done in California, so they had the first project, doesn't mean that is the best way of doing things.  --Holderca1 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but I think most states developped their browsing more or less independently of California. At least NJ did, there's a long discussion on WT:NJSCR detailing it.
 * Having separate browsing loops doesn't give any way for the user to browse through all numbered routes in a states, especially when there's separate list articles for Interstate, US, and state highways. -- NORTH talk 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The browse for New York evolved independently of California as well, as did most of the surrounding states. Initially, only state highways were included in the browse for New York, but that was only due to the fact that there was no way to continue browsing upon going to a Interstate/U.S. route page which, at the time, lacked a browse. Once browse rows were installed on all of the Interstates and U.S. routes, the browse order was expanded to include the two categories. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the current system doesn't either, because there are still seperate browses. As far as I can tell, it is okay for TX to have 3 seperate browses, but not 4 or 5 (I already said I have no problem combining interstate and US highways).  Having 4 in TX makes all kinds of sense, you would have 1)IH & US for federal highways, 2)primary state highways, 3)Loops and Spurs, 4)Farm/Ranch to Market Roads (or secondary state highways) --Holderca1 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Include decommissioned routes or not?
Should former routes be in the browsing order? If so, how should routes like Virginia State Route 110 (1947-1956) be dealt with? For this reason, among others, I think it's best to exclude them. --NE2 06:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion: former designations that redirect to current routes should be left out of the browsing order, so that there's only one browsing on each article. Former designations that have their own article (such as New Jersey Route 25) should be included in the browsing order.
 * In the specific case you mentioned, which is when it has it's own article, but conflicts with a current number, it should probably be treated similar to a bannered route. That is, prominent links on the current SR 110 page to the decommissioned designations, and prominent links on the decommissioned pages back to the current page.  Right now, the former links are present, but not the latter. -- NORTH talk 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What about cases that don't conflict with current numbers, but have been used more than once? (Virginia State Route 88) I would also think that it's best to avoid these. The same probably applies to numbers that have only been used once and then decommissioned, but were part of an earlier numbering system. Personally, I think it should be decided on a state-by-state basis, based on how often the state reuses numbers. If the state goes back and reuses former numbers, then only current numbers should be included, but if the next number is always used, then all former routes should be in the browse. --NE2 07:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO, that disambiguation page should be included in the browsing order then. Just MHO, though, I don't particularly have a vested interest in this case. -- NORTH talk 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't think we were supposed to link to disambiguation pages from articles. --NE2 09:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, it's necessary since there would be no other way to get to the split articles. Example: PA 96 includes PA 97, a dab page, in its browse. Without a link to PA 97, there would be no way to access PA 97 north or PA 97 south from PA 96. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

More on browsing in Florida
Okay, still working on figuring out how to browse on Florida state roads. U.S. Route 1 in Florida carries the hidden designation of State Road 5 for most of its length. It also carries the hidden designation of State Road 15 for its northernmost 15 miles. I had planned on browsing with SR 5 since that was the majority of the route, but State Road 5 has its own article since it is signed for about 6 miles in West Palm Beach. They couldn't have made it easy on me or anything. It is looking like I may have to do multiple browse for some of these, but I just want some input on what others think. --Holderca1 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Put this page together to help illustrate my problem. WikiProject Florida State Roads/Hidden  --Holderca1 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the browse should go by the road's signed number then to avoid the issues shown on your subpage. This issue may affect Georgia as well, which gives Interstates an unsigned 400-series designation. Whether or not issues like the ones that exist in Florida also exist in Georgia, I can't say. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am thinking that may be the only way to go or else I will be constantly banging my head against the wall. --Holderca1 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Add a section for state specific issues
What does everyone think about adding a section that describes what to do in situations that are not obvious. Such a Texas section that shows how to browse loops, spurs and farm roads, and Florida with its hidden designations and to browse by what it is signed. --Holderca1 16:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)