Talk:Interstate 15 in Arizona

Too many images

Love the images, but there's too many as is. Need a gallery, or to put some at commons. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of August 14, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article follows the guidelines for good prose.

2. Factually accurate?: The references throughout the article are adequate and the in-line citations are in the correct positions.

3. Broad in coverage?: The topic covers the broadness very well and summaries the information correctly.

4. Neutral point of view?: It expands all regions of ideas.

5. Article stability? The article is very stable and does not have constant edit wars.

6. Images?: The pictures are well presented in the correct ways.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of Bridges

The bridges carrying I-15 over the Virgin River in Arizona are numbered from 1 to 7, increasing in number in the northbound direction. The original plans called for 7 separate bridges; however, a change order during construction combined Bridges 2 & 3 into a single continuous bridge from milepost 13.12 to 13.43. ADOT record systems still continue to keep separate entries for the two bridge segments, since they use slightly different structure types and details, but the reality is that there are only six actual bridges (abutment to abutment) on I-15 in Arizona, and four in the heart of the gorge. RCMoeur (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? --Holderca1 ^talk 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How's this:

• It's common knowledge among Arizona DOT staff working on the corridor
• It's been confirmed in verbal interviews and discussions with the original engineers
• A visual inspection of the bridge reveals it to be one continuous structure over the river, with slightly varying bridge types for the original #2 & #3 segments
• It's probably on a set of plans somewhere (which are in the records files in Phoenix and are not on the Internet)

While these facts aren't readily discoverable by someone casually cruising the Internet, they are still correct.

P.S. I'll be looking at these bridges in person next week (finishing up the recent structural work on Bridge #7). If for some reason I'm incorrect (which I think is unlikely), I'll definitely post a correction. RCMoeur (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Holderca1, I think if you put as a source "per email response from ADOT employee" this would not be challenged at the review.Dave (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is going to be a problem when taking the article to FAC. I was trying to find the proper way to cite an e-mail and found out that all sources have to be published, which an e-mail is not. Is there a published document somewhere that verifies this? Keep in mind, the source doesn't have to be available online to be cited. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. You wouldn't have more photos of other Arizona highways that you would be willing to contribute would you? --Holderca1 ^talk 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

We might want to change the images; the two Cedar Pocket ones are very similar. We should probably move them to Commons too so we can link to the others. --NE2 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, I guess the clouds made it look different. I know there were more images in this article earlier on and I removed some of the for a better layout. I will check to see if those are better. I agree on moving them to the Commons, isn't there a bot or something that will that for us if we just tag the images? --Holderca1 ^talk 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no bot. There are a couple of scripts out there to semi-automate the process. I use Wikipedia:Commons_helper, it's not that bad.Dave (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say that too - the two ones at Cedar Pocket are virtally identical bar the weather conditions. Greater variety of images should be used, especially in a FA - it's a long road!. 81.156.126.30 (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a potentially interesting alternative picture in the Virgin River Gorge article - [1] --Kvng (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not Transcontinental

I-15 wouldn't be Transcontinental as stated in the first line, seeing as it runs north south and not east west across the continent. If anything it is trans-national. Bigal888 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Transcontinental means crossing a continent, the name doesn't specify which direction the continent has to be traversed, so transcontinental seems justified. --86.173.140.26 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then it would have to go from southern Mexico to Northern Canada to be transcontinental. How does crossing a third of the continent count as being transcontinental? Bigal888 (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

this was a featured article ru high? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.171.153 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Length and mileage

A couple users have reverted my edits to the exit list and the mileage length. Maybe these users don't "agree" with these numbers, but I took them directly from ADOT Highway Log [2] so I don't see how there can be a dispute from them. At the bottom of page 99, it clearly states "29.39" for the total number of miles. It has been reverted to 29.3 and I'm not sure why, since this source clearly indicated otherwise. All my changes have been clearly cited - I would not make such changes without a citation in the first place. The mile marker for exits 9 and 18 have also been reverted. The log says the following:

Exit	On-ramp marker	Off-ramp marker
Farm Rd (9)	9.83	10.03
Cedar Pocket (18)	18.32	18.60

I don't see how the mile marker for these exits can be higher or lower than these numbers since the interchange can't take place before or after the on-/off-ramps. If there is a source that does say otherwise, then cite it properly, which does not mean to add a hidden comment next to the information. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not new. When Interstate 70 in Utah was on the main page, a similar thing occurred. In that case UDOT publishes everything to 3 decimal places (i.e. 12.345) in their milage logs. I did have people reverting claiming false precision or "no way can someone measure that accurate", even though the figures were cited to the official UDOT logs. Then we have the other extreme with roads articles, a certain set of editors suffering from some kind of OCD disorder who spend far more time edit warring with each other over every minute detail in the exit lists then contributing actual content. Welcome to the project!!!! =-) Dave (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, for the record. In UDOT and CDOT logs, the mileposts of the bridges are given, so I haven't had to deal with this. I just used the figures for the bridge. However, I think what you did is appropriate. I would, frankly, pick a milage figure of a feature known to be part of the interchange (on-ramp, off-ramp, or bridge) or split the difference between the two. Dave (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did. I average the difference for the on- and off-ramp and used that at the mile marker for the junction as seen here. But of course, an editor had to revert both edits (for this and the one for the highway length) stating they were both uncited. Did they not see the little ref number next to it? I don't know. But using a hidden comment as a citation was just a little out there. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the UDOT and CDOT logs, the ADOT logs do give bridge mileposts as well. But there were 2 issues here. Exit 9 (Farm Rd) is a right-in/right-out intersection, so there's no grade-separated interchange with an over/underpass. Therefore, only the ramp mile markers are given. Now at Exit 18 (Cedar Pocket), the northbound off-ramp is given marker number 18.06, and the northbound on-ramp is given marker number 18.32. However, the crossing for the exit is given 18.33, so I'm confused as to how the overpass for this exit has a higher number than both ramps. This is why I just did the average. Take a look at the ADOT log and see for yourself and maybe you can figure it out better than I can. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I would do the following, if taking the average of the onramp and offramp is not acceptable, what I would then do is record the figure for the first offramp in the direction of milepost procession (i.e. Northbound in this case) Dave (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I see for mileage figures at exit 18 and the Utah/Arizona State line:

• 18.08 C Northbound Offramp (page 96)
• 18.34 C Northbound onramp (page 96)
• 18.34 N Southbound onramp (page 99)
• 18.35 A Bridge (page 96)
• 18.61 N Southbound offramp (page 99)
• 29.36 N State Line (Southbound lanes) (page 99)
• 29.43 C State Line (Northbound lanes) (page 97)

IMO the appropriate figure to use for exit 18 is 18.35. I think I know what you are missing. Remember that when two essentially parallel carriageways or roadbeds that both make a 90 degree curve, one roadbed will be slightly longer that the other, due to the differences in the radii of curvature. Specifically the roadbed on the inside of the curve will be slightly shorter. So if mileages are measured along the roadbed for that direction of travel (which is what ADOT has done) the mileages for the same feature will NOT line up. The only way to make them lineup is if the distances along both roadbeds are measured along a common line, such as the median. However, in mountainous terrain, where the distance between the median and each roadbed can vary significantly, this is not always practical. What those figures tell me is that a car driving from the NV/AZ state line to the bridge for exit 18 will have actually traveled slightly less than a car making the opposite drive on the southbound lanes. However the situation reverses itself by the time that northbound driver reaches the Utah state line. For the entire drive across the state, a northbound driver will have actually driven slightly farther than a southbound driver.

The question is, Is figure of 18.35 for the bridge measured along the northbound lanes, southbound lanes or some "neutral" line (i.e. median)? This guide hints a neutral line, as most mileage figures are followed by a code "C" or "N", however the bridge figure is followed by a code "A". Unfortunately there is no legend; however, it's fairly obvious that C= Cardinal (i.e. Northbound lanes), N = Non-Cardinal (i.e. Southbound Lanes). If I had to guess A = "Average". This also means that the "best" figure for statewide length is 29.4, and someone was correct to round the figures to the nearest level where they agree. For the record, what I've done for longer roads (where I don't want to spend the hours to decode all this crap) is just use the figures for what AZ calls the cardinal direction. However, I see why this was complicated, Utah and Colorado make this slightly easier to do, as their formatting for this information is easier to follow. Dave (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 15 in Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616215809/http://tpd.az.gov/mpd/data/Reports/PDF/2009SHSLog.pdf to http://tpd.az.gov/mpd/data/Reports/PDF/2009SHSLog.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080711120044/http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE72/htm/72_04_020100.htm to http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE72/htm/72_04_020100.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506091719/http://www.canamex.org/CanaMexUSA.asp to http://www.canamex.org/CanaMexUSA.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 15 in Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904202357/http://www.azhighwaydata.com/engineeringrecs/search.asp?Road=%20%20I%20015&BKMP=&EKMP=&Show=False&Tracs=&Fed= to http://www.azhighwaydata.com/engineeringrecs/search.asp?Road=%20%20I%20015&BKMP=&EKMP=&Show=False&Tracs=&Fed=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016224211/http://imgis.nps.gov/Geocortex/Viewer/NPS/Viewer.html?Viewer=National%20Historic%20Trails to http://imgis.nps.gov/Geocortex/Viewer/NPS/Viewer.html?Viewer=National%20Historic%20Trails

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)