From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject U.S. Roads |
| West East All |
| Project-wide news |
|
|
| NCs |
|
|
| Deletion debates |
|
|
| Maps Task Force |
- Voting has concluded on a standard map design at WT:USRD/MTF. Standards for all U.S. road maps on Wikipedia can now be found at WP:USRD/MTF.
|
| Assessment |
| U.S. road transport articles |
Importance |
| Top |
High |
Mid |
Low |
None |
Total |
| Class |
 FA |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
| A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 GA |
|
|
|
|
2 |
2 |
| B |
|
4 |
1 |
|
244 |
249 |
| Start |
3 |
7 |
47 |
5 |
566 |
628 |
| Stub |
|
5 |
134 |
65 |
1016 |
1220 |
| Unassessed |
|
|
|
|
1387 |
1387 |
| Total |
3 |
16 |
182 |
70 |
3216 |
3487 |
|
|
Assessment links
|
|
| Shields |
- Proposal to change the naming conventions of state-specific Interstate shields and all county route shields has been offered. See WT:USRD/S.
- All shields should be moved from Wikipedia to the Commons so that the shields can be better organized.
- Discussions regarding the naming of county route and state-specific Interstate shields underway, see WT:USRD/S.
|
| Interstates |
|
|
| U.S. Highways |
|
|
| Connecticut |
- Project started.
- Stub-a-week Project -- see Project talk page for details.
- Existing articles have been assessed.
|
| Florida |
|
|
| Georgia |
- Lowest mainline route without an article: S.R. 29
- Lowest mainline route without a map: S.R. 29
- Maps are available for all mainline routes at Commons
- Completion list
|
| Illinois |
|
|
| Kentucky |
- Added Kentucky Route 67 and will be adding more history to this and others when I get my HTML files at home.
- Kentucky Route 44 added. Partially detailed with infobox, stub status.
|
| Maryland |
|
|
| Massachusetts |
|
|
| Michigan |
- Lowest active route not infoboxed/mapped: M-138
- Lowest active route without an article: M-138
- Completion list is available here
- Route maps at Commons
All active Michigan trunklines have a map available at the above link
|
| New Hampshire |
|
|
| New Jersey |
- Best practice article at Route 17
- Infobox made for county route articles. Talk to Northenglish for missing shields.
|
| New York |
- Lowest active route without an article: 10A.
- All known articles have been cleaned up and assessed.
- Reference routes are now part of WP:NYSR and have their own infobox.
- NYSR/NYCR editors may also be interested in the new New York WikiProject.
WP:NYCR
- Article for Ridge Road, focusing on the four county routes it carries in Monroe and Wayne counties, has been created.
|
| North Carolina |
- Lowest mainline route without an article: NC 33
- Major Junctions issue currently under discussion at WT:NCSH
- North Carolina Highway System article needs cleanup on history, etc.
- Our beloved ncroads.com source has shut down, but a mirror can be found at the NC Roads Annex.
|
| Ohio |
|
|
| Pennsylvania |
- Timetable has been created for updating all articles to the new standards. See WP:PASH.
- All existing PA articles need to be cleaned up according to the standards at WP:PASH.
- See PA Routes Status for the status of PA Routes 1 to 100.
- See article Pennsylvania Route 39 as an example when writing articles.
- Naming convention: Pennsylvania Route x.
|
| Vermont |
- All articles cleaned up and assessed. Most are still stubs, though.
|
| Virginia |
- Naming convention change to Virginia State Route x.
- Route infobox is upgraded
|
| West Virginia |
- Project started.
- Infobox road has been prepared for WV .
|
| Wisconsin |
- WIS Active and known decommissioned roads have been stubbed at minimum. Many still require detail.
- Wisconsin Road Stub now available and in use.
- NC: Wisconsin Highway x.
- Articles have been assessed.
|
| Spread the word! {{Project U.S. Roads East}} edit |
I promised SVGs above, but unfortunately I can't get them to work. (See NC 2, NC 3, and NC 903.) Oh well, so sad. I may work on creating the missing PNGs by the end of the week, however. -- NORTH talk 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, all I see is a two on NC 2.svg. Oh well, thanks for trying. I don't know much about .svg's except that for me, they are hard to make. Corel Draw is the only program I've found that will actually open them in the correct way so they are editable, but saving it the correct size is a pain. I have to resize the page over and over again. So, what I guess I'm saying is... that's better than what I can do. --TinMan 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had no problem creating some county route shields for WP:NJSCR, but with these whenever I move them out of the folder I have them in (or upload them), I lose the background. -- NORTH talk 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
PNGs are done! -- NORTH talk 02:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Three cheers for Northenglish! Thanks! --TinMan 04:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just passing through when I noticed this section here. From the way it appears, the NC shield (2di-s anyway) is just a black square with a white rhombus in the center, so it wouldn't be too difficult to make. If anyone still wants SVGs for North Carolina, I'd be more than happy to make them. --TMF T - C 19:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you could help that would be great. On the shields, all the sides on the black box are the same length and all the sides on the white box are the same length (tiltted at 45 degrees). It's just that simple. Keep in mind that for larger route numbers, the boxes do not stretch, they remain square, unlike U.S. route shields. To compensate, the numbers shrink or squish. The best comparison for this is to look at
, 
and 
. Notice the numbers get smaller and the box does not alter. You probably already knew this, but just in case. --TinMan 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Here's a look at what's to come:
If the design looks good, I'll make the rest. --TMF T - C 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Looks great to me. The four is a little off center though it seems. --TinMan 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I fixed the position of the four. Also, shields for all of the present state highways have been uploaded to the Commons (in the format NC x.svg. I'll work on the decommissioned routes sometime in the near future. --TMF T - C 01:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Decommissioned routes are now done as well. --TMF T - C 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wow that was fast. I switched Template:Infobox road/NC NC shield and the rest of the infobox to use the NC x.svg images. Just curious, what are the main advantages of svg's? I know they save space. --TinMan 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Other than saving space, SVGs can be resized to any resolution while maintaining their clarity. This makes the use of SVGs ideal when compared to PNGs (for example), which can become "cluttered" or blurry if resized too small or pixelated if resized too big. SVGs, though, are crystal clear regardless of how big or small the image is resized. --TMF T - C 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Major Junctions Issue
Jayron brought up an issue that I've been debating with myself for some time. How should we handle the "Major Junctions" part of the NC highways infobox. As a basic guideline, I've been including every junction with a freeway, whether it's I-40, US 421 (west of Winston-Salem), or NC 147 for all the routes. For short routes (less than 50 miles or so) or routes that don't have many junctions with other routes, I've included some of the minor junctions. If the state highway is is about 10 miles long, many times I just leave out the major junctions section altogether. For the really long state highways, I've tried to merge the major junctions and the major cities sections by listing the biggest junctions in the major cities. I really try not to leave out any cities if I can because these state highways may be the most important roads in these areas. Sometimes, if I can incorporate those cities in the article, I can leave them out of the infobox. The infoboxes shouldn't be lengthy, but I've been having trouble weighing principles, as in the case of NC 211. So I guess we need to come up with a guideline for which junctions should go in the major junctions section, which cities go in the major cities section and what should we do with route concurrencies (should that have its own box)? I think we should try to have no more than eight junctions in the major junctions section. What do y'all think? I would appreciate comment from members on this WikiProject as well as from experienced Wikipedians in routeboxes (like SPUI). --TinMan 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's an idea on how to do this. 1) All U.S. and Interstate Highways are "major" and 2) State Highways are "major" if they, at the point of the junction, are maintained comparable to U.S. and Interstate Routes. (major throughfares in cities and/or multilane divided roads and/or freeways) Thus, NC 147 is "major" as it is a freeway. NC 97, probably not so, since it is a 2 lane shoulderless road for much of its route.
Another idea, more subjective, should be "Would any person in their right mind take this routing." For example, NC 50 parallels I-40 as it crosses several NC routes. It would make no sense to list NC 50 in the infobox of say, NC 210, which less than 1 mile away crosses I-40, since anyone traveling NC 50 would do better to take I-40. Thus, the NC 210/NC 50 junction is not "major".
OTOH, NC 49 provides a reasonably shorter route between Asheboro and Charlotte than the interstates or U.S. Highways, and is a fairly heavily traveled road. Likewise NC 24 between Charlotte and Fayetteville. Any road that crosses these between these cities SHOULD list them in their info boxes.
Some roads depend on which section is being considered. For example, NC 87 is an important highway between Sanford & Fayetteville, but much less so around, say, Reidsville.
Perhaps what we should do is devise a sort of canonical list of "major" highways first, and only put those in the info boxes of other routes.
Jayron32 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree with all that as long as the the number of junctions in the box doesn't go over 8. If there are more than 8, start removing the least important ones. The infobox shouldn't be longer than the article itself if it can be helped. Plus, concurrencies should only be added as junctions if they are shared for a short distance. --TinMan 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, on second thought, I guess we just have to limit them as much as we can for the longer routes. I just looked at NC 55 and all those junctions are important, so we can't really remove any. --TinMan 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I'd just like to point out the standard that we've been using for with "near", "at", and "in". If a junction is more than five miles outside the limits of a city, then use the term "near" (i.e. 
I-40 near Winston-Salem;). If the junction is on the city limits border or less than five miles from the city limits, generally use "at" (i.e. 
US 74 at Bolton;). If the junction is within the city limits, use the term "in" (i.e. 
NC 11 in Wilson). This is the general guideline for those terms in the Major Junctions and Termini sections on the Infobox. --TinMan 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you can help it, don't add a "Cities" section unless there are many cities/towns/villages that are not listed in your Major junctions box that the route goes THROUGH (meaning, enters the city limits); if it goes through a rural area of Durham outside the city, don't add Durham. Plus, termini cities are not included in the Cities section. --TinMan 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- So, what you are saying is only include a city once in the infobox. If it occurs in a junction, don't put it in the cities section? -- Jayron32 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have cities repeated over and over and over. If the highway goes through Atown, Btown, Ctown, Dtown, and Etown and towns A, B, D, and E are in the major junction box, you shouldn't have to create a "cities" section just to make Dtown known; if you want, talk about that town in the article. If you had only towns A and C in the major junctions box, then you could make a Major Cities box including towns A-E. Short routes are different though. The article body should be more in-depth than the infobox obviously. --TinMan 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. So what to do about concurrencies? I would agree that short concurrencies, like say the NC 42/US 70 concurrency in Clayton, or other places where two routes share a short stretch of pavement when passing through a downtown area would qualify more as "junctions", but what about LONG concurrencies, like say NC 24/27 or even NC 50/US 70? List it twice in the junction section? Create a new section in the info box? Or handle it in the route description writeup? Create a new header in the write-up maybe? -- Jayron32 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really like the Concurrency box idea because again, that makes the infobox longer and I don't see that as "need to know" information. If the routes split at a major junction, I would list it as such. If not, I would just mention the concurrency in the article body. Does that work for you? --TinMan 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- All sounds great. So we will a) List major concurrencies in article, not info-box b) Only treat state highways as "major" when maintained to a level equivalent to U.S. or Interstate Highways c) Only use the Cities section when major cities are NOT occuring in the junction list, which itself should be rare and d) Try to keep "major" junctions lists small, like 4-5 and definately no more than 8 for the longest routes. Does that summarize the style guide for these articles? -- Jayron32 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Basically, yeah. Sounds good to me too. Yet, like I said earlier, NC 55 has a lot of important interchanges and I don't think I can determine which ones to remove; I'd rather not delete any without having some mention in the article about them. But besides that issue, that seems like a good sytle guide. --TinMan 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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) 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abbreviations for the Infobox
Ok, I'm trying to find abbreviations that we can use for the infobox (mainly the main junctions box and termini). If there are concurrencies, I usually only state the type of highway once. (for example: US 15/501). The goal is to keep the junctions on one line if possible. The problem I come to is with Business Routes. Should I use BUS US 15 or US 15 BUS or US 15 Bus or Bus US 15 or US 15 BR or BR US 15? If I just use the whole word "Business", it gets really unasthetically pleasing. Personally, I like US 15 Bus. --TinMan 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- "US 15 Bus" or "US 15 Bus." works for me. I agree with everything else as well. --TMF T - C 04:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gathering information for NC Roads
Please let me know what you think of this method. I will be digging through all the redlinked NC Roadways and cross referencing them to the NCDOT GIS site to determine the shorter roads and start by pulling county maps for those 1-county roads to get basic information. Do you prefer inclusion of an infobox & stub or a full article? Id like to get the infoboxes put up and hopefuly that will foster development of the stub pages... Rob110178 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- The infoboxes would be great... I've noticed what you've been doing and it's great. I've just been correcting some minor errors in the boxes, so if you don't mind, I'll be trolling the NC highways articles fixing some of that stuff. If you start a new article, I only ask that you include one sentence in the article. If you can, say "NC x is a North Carolina state highway. " or something like that for an introduction. That way we just don't have boxes with no text at all. Other than that, all sounds good. Stubs would be great too.
- Hi, I'm the curator of All Things NC! and NC State Highway Ends. I just wanted to wish you all luck in completing this project, and if you need any additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I'll refrain from any edits as that could be considered a conflict of interest. Again, Good Luck! --CanesFan27 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conversion to "North Carolina Highway x" Format Issues
As with many changes, there are consequences. Since we've all agreed at WP:SRNC to change to the "North Carolina Highway x" format, the word "state" will be removed from all the article titles in the near future when we get approval. This may cause a few minor problems that we need to think about. The category right now for our state highways is Category:North Carolina State Highways. Changing this category to "Category:North Carolina Highways" may create confusion, since US highways, Interstates, and other routes and freeways are also considered North Carolina Highways. How would we name the category so that we just have NC routes and not US 158 or Bryan Boulevard? Should we keep the cat name the same? Should we change it to "North Carolina Routes"? What do y'all think? --TinMan 04:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say keep the cat name the same. From my personal experience, it's no easy task to get a category relating to state roads renamed over at WP:CfD. --TMF T - C 05:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NC Highway 55 Visibility
Just as a heads up, NC Highway 55 is linked from wikinews regarding the big fire in Apex... Good chance for some visibility! Rob110178 22:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia: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 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NCSH that need to be created
I decided to take a quick stroll through the page and make a list of pages that need to be generated. Maybe this will make it a little easier to find something specific to do! I will continue to work on this, let me know what you think as a start! Rob110178 14:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
NCSH Articles Needed
| NC 2 Through NC 50 |
33 |
34 |
37 |
41 |
43 |
45 |
48 |
| NC 51 Through NC 100 |
53 |
56 |
57 |
59 |
61 |
63 |
65 |
66 |
68 |
69 |
71 |
72 |
73 |
78 |
79 |
80 |
81 |
88 |
91 |
92 |
93 |
94 |
98 |
99 |
| NC 101 Through NC 150 |
102 |
105 |
106 |
108 |
109 |
111 |
112 |
113 |
114 |
115 |
116 |
118 |
120 |
122 |
124 |
125 |
127 |
130 |
131 |
133 |
134 |
135 |
137 |
138 |
141 |
142 |
145 |
146 |
149 |
| NC 151 Through NC 200 |
|
| NC 201 Through NC 242 |
|
| NC 251 Through NC 294 |
|
| NC 304 Through NC 481 |
|
| NC 522 Through NC 694 |
|
| NC 700 Through NC 905 |
|
