Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Utah/Archive 1

New Route List Input requested

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no objections; moved. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides the numbering (Utah State Route X, Utah SR X, Utah SR-X, State Route X (Utah)) what do you all think about this for replacing the current list on List of Utah State Routes? A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ b] • [ p] • [ d] • [ m]) 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Its been updated to include everything at the moment, please comment. I will move it pending any feedback. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ b] • [ p] • [ d] • [ m]) 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Replace with what? Like...a table? bob rulz 03:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Replacing the existing table at List of Utah State Routes with User:Admrboltz/utahlist. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ b] • [ p] • [ d] • [ m]) 03:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Very nice. Some people might have a problem with the font size in the description column, although it doesn't bother me personally. The footnotes are a bit bewildering, but that's probably unavoidable. Overall, very well done and a potential model for other states. --phh (t/c) 04:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re the small font; thats just the (vague) legal description; it would be presented in normal print in the article (see Utah State Route 201). A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ b] • [ p] • [ d] • [ m]) 04:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Utah
Many articles covered by this WikiProject lack photographs. As part of a subcategorization of the requested photos category, there is now a category for Utah articles needing photos - to use it, just add to the article's talk page. I have only added a few articles to the category so far, but it would be an easy way to make an extensive list California-related articles lacking photos. I hope you find it useful! TheGrappler 05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll/Part2
Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates
All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  master son T - C 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As a footnote (if not to say, afterthought), I note that Utah-road-stub is a little small, especially given the "demotion" of Utah roads to non-Wikiproject status. Would it perhaps be more useful to useful to upmerge that template to  (or else to, proposed some time ago), by way of "consolidation"?  Alai 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be feasible, but only to a Western US road stub, as there's no sense in adding more stubs to the already semi-hefty US stub cat. Additionally, after some examination, at least 78 of the current US road stubs would fit into a Western US road stub, and that would increase to about 102 if Utah is included. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm all in favour of putting US-road-stub on a diet;  the other two "regions" may be worthwhile pushing ahead with, on the same sort of basis.  Alai 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder from USRD
In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:


 * 1) Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
 * 2) If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
 * 3) USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
 * 4) However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoring this project?
Is there interest in the repromotion of this project? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Utah project promotion
I am proposing the repromotion of the project at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about state law sections
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads --NE2 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What purpose does a list of minor state routes serve?
There is a discussion going on here: Talk:List of minor state routes in Utah that may interest all editors interested in Utah highways.Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

US 6, US-6, U.S. 6, etc.
This is a result of a discussion at: WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 70 in Utah. The Template:Jct for Utah routes formats abbreviations for U.S. Routes as "US-491". It is one of the few states to do so, as most states use the format "US 491". The rationale given by the editor who changed the jct template to respond this way is "UDOT uses a dash". While I have not found a style guide on UDOT's homepage, this appears to be true, UDOT's website does consistently use a dash. The problem is for multistate articles, the Utah section looks different. So... should we follow UDOT's standard, or the "consensus" of other projects under WP:USRD's umbrella? Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the dash should be included, so be it if the Utah section looks different... The problem is almost nothing in Utah is standardized when it comes to road signs, you see different series of Highway Gothic being used all over the place as one example. Also with a US highway you'll see something like US-89, U.S.-89, or even SR-89. But I've never seen US 89. UDOT uses the dash, so my preference would be to keep using here as well. First though, what are the few other states that use a dash, and what do they do for this problem? CL — 04:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody have information about the causes for the 1977 renumbering
The stated reason for the 1977 Utah state route renumbering was to simplify the state route system by using the same number in the state law as what is signed for U.S. and interstate routes. I.E. Interstate 15 will now also be state route 15. Although the UDOT highway resolutions only talks in general terms, I had often wondered if there were one or two specific instances that had spurred the momentum to renumber the routes that could cause confusion. I had often speculated that the primary source of confusion was state route 15 which existed in SW Utah and came within 15 miles of Interstate 15.

However, while helping user CountryLemonade with Utah State Route 126 (which was formerly state route 84) I now suspect that if there was a specific instance to motivate the legislature to renumber routes, it would have been this one. Then SR-84 crossed then I-80N at least 3 times according to my 1974 map. 1977 is also when the discussions got serious to renumber I-80N to I-84, meaning SR-84 and I-84 would have ran parallel and crossed each other for a significant length. Does anybody know of any newspaper articles, etc. from this period? I'm now wondering. That would have been a confusing mess =-) Dave (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the SR-126 history PDF, the 82 &rarr; 84 &rarr; 126 renumbering was three months after the main renumbering, and 1.5 months after AASHTO changed I-80N to I-84. The reason stated for the main renumbering, for instance in the SR-9 PDF, is that "it would be advantageous for record keeping and developing a Highway Reference System that various state routes be redesignated by hierarchy with the route number being synonymous with the US route designation". So if the I-84 change was what spurred the change, they really screwed it up. It looks like the real culprit is the Highway Reference System that gives us mileage figures. --NE2 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for being in a hurry. I never looked at the months. I was just looking for the year and saw 1977. ThanksDave (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1953 history
You guys might find WikiProject Utah State Highways/Early state roads useful; it has some information that's not in the history PDFs. I also have the file that used to be at http://www.udot.utah.gov/download.php/tid=1348/StateRouteHistory.pdf, which includes the histories of routes without scanned resolutions, and have temporarily uploaded it to http://www.sendspace.com/file/dnz06x ; once that goes dead, email me if you want a copy of it. --NE2 12:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Utah Roads infobox template
I finished off the last few conversions to the US Roads infobox. I don't know if the plan is to delete it or not, but the pages that link to it are mostly user pages or project pages. --Glennfcowan (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I redirected to template:infobox road. --NE2 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Facility routes
Routes numbered between 281 and 320 are designated specifically to serve state facilities. Although some (such as SR-313) have significant portions outside those facilities, most are merely access roads or parking lots within the state property. I recommend that we merge the majority of the routes into a list (possibly named list of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions?), with a few retaining separate articles in addition to a mention in the list. At the top of the list we will include information that pertains to all routes.

The following such routes exist:
 * SR-282: University of Utah
 * SR-284: Weber State University
 * SR-285: Ogden City School District?
 * SR-286: Ogden-Weber Applied Technology College
 * SR-287: Utah State Prison
 * SR-289: Southern Utah University
 * SR-290: Snow College
 * SR-291: Utah Schools for the Deaf and the Blind (earlier SR-183A: Utah State Tuberculosis Sanatorium in the same place)
 * SR-292: Salt Lake Community College
 * SR-293: Utah State Capitol
 * SR-294: Utah State Hospital
 * SR-296: Utah State Developmental Center
 * SR-298: Utah Department of Public Safety Ogden Office
 * SR-299: Utah Department of Public Safety West Valley City Office
 * SR-301: Steinaker State Park
 * SR-302: Rockport State Park
 * SR-303: Goblin Valley State Park
 * SR-304: Hyrum State Park
 * SR-306: East Canyon State Park
 * SR-309: Millsite State Park
 * SR-310: Minersville State Park
 * SR-311: Starvation State Park
 * SR-312: Willard Bay State Park
 * SR-313: Dead Horse Point State Park separate article
 * SR-314: Deer Creek State Park
 * SR-315: Willard Bay State Park separate article
 * SR-316: Goosenecks State Park
 * SR-317: Rampton Complex
 * SR-318: Quail Creek State Park
 * SR-319: Jordanelle State Park
 * SR-320: Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training Academy Emergency Vehicle Operations Range (Camp Williams)

Former routes are:
 * SR-187: Utah State Prison (pre-1940 location)
 * SR-281: Dixie College
 * SR-283: College of Eastern Utah
 * SR-288: Utah State University
 * SR-295: Utah Department of Public Safety Orem Office
 * SR-297: Utah State Fairpark (Utah Department of Public Safety Fairpark Office)
 * SR-300: Snow Canyon State Park covered in the SR-8 history
 * SR-305: Big Sand State Park
 * SR-307: Gunlock State Park
 * SR-308: Kodachrome Basin State Park

This would mean that only SR-313 and SR-315 remain separate, with SR-300 continuing to redirect to SR-8. Does this sound reasonable? --NE2 11:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me, as I don't think we need a whole bunch of never going to be expanded stub articles for every one of these tiny routes. The first one for the U of U is pretty short, and seems kind of like a waste of an article almost... -- A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 15:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it. I'm assuming that we'll delete/merge the existing articles? DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I had in mind also. I intended the page List of minor state routes in Utah to serve this purpose, but didn't implement it well, starting with not having a clear definition of what "minor" means. But I definitely support a page with a list of mini-articles for routes where simply put, not enough information exists to take them past start class.Dave (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely a good idea. No way could we create a comprehensive article out of these (and while we're here, does any other state designate parking lots as state routes?). IMO, the list should have an appearance somewhat similar to Former state routes in Arizona. CL — 19:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the state likes nicely paved parking lots, so they put them into the state route system :p -- but I agree with going for something similar to the former state routes in Arizona list. -- A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it might be best to sort by city and then institution (except for the parks), since some of the routes were renumbered (Dixie College went SR-191 → SR-181A → SR-67 → SR-281!) and in other cases there was a gap when no state highway served the facility. --NE2 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you did is fine by me. Although I might play with the headings some. For example calling Price Southeastern Utah doesn't sound right. It's like calling San Francisco "Central California". It may be technically correct, but no local refers to it as that. Price is almost always referred to as Eastern Utah (i.e. College of Eastern Utah). Also, I wouldn't mind seeing the list prettied up with pictures, shields and/or infoboxes (albeit an abbreviated version) but that's a lower priority IMO.Dave (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Utah Digital Newspapers
http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/unews/

This should be useful for early history such as auto trails. For instance, there are 510 matches for the Pikes Peak Ocean to Ocean Highway. I started a list of articles at WikiProject Utah State Highways/Useful newspaper articles. --NE2 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular Pages
Hey, I had a bot pull a report for us on our most popular pages by hits and their assessment, see WikiProject Utah State Highways/Popular pages. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 08:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Utah Wikipedian Meetup
··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

C → B Drive
Hey, we need to get rolling on getting these C class articles to B or GA class. We lead USRD in C class articles, and if we want to stay ahead of Michigan in Wikiwork score, we need to get a ball on this. Category:C-Class_Utah_road_transport_articles lists 91 C class articles currently, including Legacy Parkway & Legacy Highway, I-15 and I-80. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, to make things easier, get articles from start- to C-class, which is rather simple. CL — 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need more C classes :p, though you are right, we have things like I-84 in the start class... --Admrboltz (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? I mean, if it means we go up in the leaderboard then sure. I'm just saying, it seems as if every project under USRD has slightly different standards for upping to B-class. I'd say us and MSHP have different B-class standards right now. So it's definitely easier to up from start to C, and we have about 18 more start-class articles. CL — 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, though do we comply with WP:1.0/B? --Admrboltz (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely. But for example an RD for a mile-long route in MSHP may be considered a clincher for B-class while the same RD here would be considered C-class. So we're too strict or MSHP is too loose, pick one :) CL — 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We have higher quality low-class articles, but they have more FAs... --Admrboltz (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mountain View Corridor
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mountain View Corridor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Admrboltz (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the proposed deletion template. This is a project that has been proposed for a while; see for instance . It may be related to the 1985 creation of SR-172, though I don't know for sure. --NE2 01:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrm, okay. Potentially someone can update this so we can get it out of the stub category... --Admrboltz (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't wikipedia govern by consensus? I was going to vote merge with Legacy Highway.Dave (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That might work too. --NE2 01:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support that move. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on everyone. To answer NE2's theory about SR-172, I doubt it. MVC was not planned in the mid-80s; rather, due to the growth of the area at that time, they probably transfered maintenance to the state (Sandy city officials wanted to do this to SR-151 in the early-90s but were never granted the transfer). Anyway, Legacy Highway is more of the concept of a highway running from Nephi to Brigham City (though I doubt it will get built south of Provo and north of Ogden). MVC is a portion of this concept from Lehi to west of Salt Lake City, mainly serving the west side. This will begin construction soon, in less than five years I believe (I think I heard 2010 or 2011). As you can see, Legacy Parkway is being treated as a totally different road than just a part of the Legacy Highway, so we shouldn't delete MVC. Granted, the article needs updating and expanding, but yeah. CL — 02:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether it was called MVC or not, something was planned along 5600 West in the 1980s: --NE2 05:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to look for a way to expand this. I think the final route, with the exception of the Utah County portion, has been finalized. Funding of the MVC is one of the major transportation-related debates around here nowadays. I think this can be improved to the point of being a much better article, and we would just have to recreate this article soon anyway because this freeway is going to happen one way or another. bob rulz (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

AOL Hometown - the host of Dan Stober's Utah Highways - closing its doors
Dan Stober's awesome resource, or at least the website it's hosted on, is going bye-bye. Simply put, what do we do? CL — 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it wasn't a reliable source, there doesn't seem to be anything that needs doing. (If it were one, the Internet Archive would help.) --NE2 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, whether it is an RS or not, we have a couple of sources to it and we've used pics from that site as well. I'll start saving all of the pictures on my hard drive just in case we ever have a use for them. CL — 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weather it met the wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source or not, it was an invaluable resource. For many years his site was THE roadgeek site for Utah roads. Dan's contributions to the roadgeek world should be honored. With that said it's not surprising this day would come, the site hasn't been updated in years. I'm on the road right now, if I get to my desktop in time, I'll try to save the HTML files for future reference. Shame we couldn't get Dan on board with our wikipedia project and do a brain dump.Dave (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's official, Dan Stober's page is no more. I did not archive any of it. Well, Dan, thank you for your contributions to roadgeekdom. CL, did you get any of it archived? Does anybody have his email address, I wouldn't mind sending a thank you.Dave (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it should be utahhwys at aol dot com, following the typical AOL nomenclature... --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.aol.com/utahhwys/ --NE2 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Only got the images on the stand-alone articles (I-80, SR-154 etc.) on my hard drive. CL — 18:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Shields
If no one agrees to me changing the UTjct template back to the big shields object here. CL — 18:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, will the shield debate ever die down? I'm ok with changing back to the "big" shields. 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I kind of thought about this and deemed this change unnecessary. I see the reasoning for the initial change. Sorry for wasting anyone's time CL — 01:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't take my comments wrong. I like the "big" shields. Just wondering when the shield battle will ever end. Dave (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no. It's not your comments, it's just while as I was amending the state route table on our list, I thought about it. These thumbnail shields are just images to help convey the image to the reader. Does it really matter if the number is large or not, or if there is the illegible state name above it? No. The average reader is only going to look at the number, as that is all that matters. CL — 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA audit
US-89 and SR-101 have been given a week to be raised up to true GA standards. Not sure why but I have asked at WT:USRD so stay tuned there and see what improvements could be made - we don't want to lose any good articles. CL — 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They've been spared, the former by me and the latter by Juliancolton (to whom props are given to). CL — 18:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary: -- Mr.Z-man 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
 * The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
 * I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - ~alexz/pop/.
 * This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
 * This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
 * There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
 * The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
 * The data is now retained indefinitely.
 * The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
 * Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" -

Old Utah roads pictures!
After looking for more than two years for pictures of Utah roads that pre-date this millennium, Alps Roads had a lot of them after all. Unfortunately, there's a lack of urban photos but - wow! Definitely a wonderful insight on how UDOT did it back in the day. Does anyone else have any links? CL (T · C) — 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh how back in the day Las Vegas couldnt possibly be a control city... And 80N... --Admrboltz (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks for the link CL. That brought back some memories. That's the first pic I've seen of I-70 back when it was a "super 2". (I remember it well, just never took any pictures, didn't seem notable at the time). Also a rare pic of the detour when US 6 was closed through Thistle. I might just claim fair use and borrow that one =-) Dave (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones I find most interesting are of guide-signs for US-50A in Magna (first evidence I've seen of it besides a map) and this. Could the missing shield for 2100 South (oh, notice how they don't call it Parleys Way then) be for SR-201? Or US-40? Or even US-50A? Michael Summa has more images of Utah lying around than just on Alps Roads - his other pictures are isolated across the road websites though... CL (T · C) — 04:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember when Foothill Blvd. was signed US-40, but I don't remember what Parley's Way was signed at that time. Dave (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Parleys (or Parley's, I see it both ways) was US-40A, if there ever was such a thing? It was SR-201 until 1969, so that's what I'm leaning for. CL (T · C) — 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This gives us an idea of I-70 construction. If only that could be on the I-70 in Utah article... if only. CL (T · C) — 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I remember being told that UT-4 was never signed... >.> --Admrboltz (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I'll crawl back to my cave and hide now =-) Dave (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, don't worry about it :p --Admrboltz (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Status
Is this an untagged independent Project or a WP:TASKFORCE of WikiProject US Roads? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a child project of US Roads. Tagged now. Thanks for pointing that out. De  Fault  Ryan  02:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Old roads photos... part II
Back in September 2009, I posted about finding old pictures of roads in Utah. Back then, there was one website that had a handful of pictures from outside Salt Lake. Well, a lot's changed since then. Over the past few months I've been poring over boxes of photos at the state archives, and have encountered some excellent finds (a sign for I-415, anyone?). I've only gone through about a fifth of the total boxes so far, so there's more to come. Check them out. CL (T · C) — 23:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy cow, that's some amazing stuff. So you just ended up taking your digicam and snapping your own photos? De  Fault  Ryan  17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Some of those pics brought back memories. By chance any pics of the Nephi Death Strip that you've found in the archives? I've debated adding a section on the I-15 article to discuss it, but haven't gotten up the gumption to do so yet.Dave (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, and the result is great, especially considering getting a scan of the photo is $10 a pop. The folks at the archives don't mind. And as for the death strip (that was finally bypassed by the freeway in 1986, correct?), I haven't seen any photos of it quite yet. I still have another 110 boxes to look through though, so the chances of me finding one aren't low. I'll keep my eyes peeled. CL (T · C) — 01:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Update on missing highway resolutions
So I emailed UDOT about some of the highways missing from their resolutions page, and as it turns out, highways that aren't listed on that page are absent because they have never been changed by any resolutions. The specific wording in the email went: SR-141 and SR-244 have not had any resolutions and that is why they are not listed. Only routes that have had resolutions for whatever reason in the history of that route will be listed in the routes with resolutions. ... Some routes have never changed in history while others have changed for some reason. Only if a route has changed for some reason is a resolution written. So, we should figure out a good way of citing this information or something, so that for routes with no resolutions, we can say that route hasn't changed since its creation and back it up with a citation of some sort. De Fault  Ryan  16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles
There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 02:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of USRD
There is a proposal to demote all state highway WikiProjects to task forces; see WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 05:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)