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

Archive 1

New Shields On Wikimedia Commons

I'm in the process of creating new shields over on Wikimedia Commons. I'll switch the template over when I get most of them done. You can see them here. Micheal 18:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Per the conversation below, I have uploaded all new standardized shields with the naming convention OH-X.svg thru OH-XXX.svg, and they can be found here. Homefryes 14:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • ALERT

Have seen a new sign template in use, on SR-58NB near a new development that required some road const. may just be a contractor posting a non-ODOT sign. picture to follow when i have more time.

Einstine85 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

Renamed List of numbered routes in Ohio to List of Ohio State Highways to try and go for uniformity in list naming (for state highways). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure we should "jump the gun" on renaming of the articles, since that whole bit is still up in the air. If you don't object, I'd like to revert the "naming" portion back to the original (on the project page) until the entire naming debate is settled; the majority (if not all) of the articles are currently "Ohio State Highway n," so this change would begin the whole process of renaming/moving them. Additionally, once the debate is settled, we will need to agree on either "route" or "highway." Anyone else wish to comment, please? Homefryes 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's old. For now, I have kept the page directing to List of state routes in Ohio which redirects to the main page. In the future, this can easily be changed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm referring to the change you made on the project page under "Naming." Not sure we should change this as of yet, i.e., new articles having one naming convention when most (if not all) existing articles are named "Ohio State Highway n." That's the revert I'm proposing (reverting the project page back to show the currently used naming convention for articles). I'm just saying we should avoid confusion until other issues have been resolved, because then we'll need to bring project-specific issues to the floor. Trying to make sense (without stepping on toes). Homefryes 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit) P.S., I think you have the explanation of "article title" and "redirect" reversed in your comment for the edit on the project page. Homefryes 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Project improvements

To all interested parties on this project: I’ve been working on articles for other state highway wikiprojects, and in comparing them to this one, I would like to make some proposals for improvement. While what we have going here so far is good, I think there is definitely some room for improvement. I’m very interested in starting a conversation regarding my proposals.

I realize that some of you may feel that “this is a bad time to be working on highway projects,” in light of recent events and activities going on in the community. I, however, think this is the perfect time to work on this project. Changes based on the outcome of some of the afore-mentioned events may bring massive changes (or not) to this project; regardless, this would be a good time to make some changes here and incorporate them in the grand scheme.

What I am suggesting overall is a better organization of the project itself. The actual project outline could use more specifics, in my opinion. In comparison to the WP:NYSR, I think we are pretty vague on our project page. Here are some of my detailed suggestions:

Infobox

My overall suggestion is that we use the Infobox Road template, which is more widely used and consistent with other states' pages. Pennsylvania’s is a good example. Some of the features we lack that this one has are:

• Year formed
• Counties listing

Thie would remove the Cities listing from the infobox. For routes that are long, and/or pass through suburban areas, the cities listing can get rather long, thus taking up a lot of space. We already have the cities in a list in the body of the article, so we are just duplicating that.

As for the browsing line at the bottom of the infobox, I will say that I’m not a fan of US routes being linked-up if they fall in sequence with the state routes – reason being, the reader gets pulled out of the state’s route listings altogether, a problem I find annoying when I’m browsing. However, it seems to be the norm on other projects, and there is the possibility of having each state’s previous and next routes listed on the US route’s page in a browsing format. So, if this is the way it is to be (for standardization), then we need to be certain that the state’s routes are listed on the US route’s page (see the bottom of U.S. Route 4 for an example).

I can make a info box similar to what I now use at, for instance, Kentucky State Highway 7. It is entirely customizable and quick to set up. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That looks good. I tried playing with "infobox road" for Ohio, but the default for Ohio is SR rather than OH. While I'm not opposed to that, I'm not sure it's the way we want to go. I'm hoping to get more feedback on the content that should be included. I'm not sure now that "year formed" should be part of it, since I have yet to find that information out on the web anywhere. But I do lean toward including counties and not including cities in the infobox, as mentioned above. Homefryes 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the one that the NY State Routes Wikiproject uses. It has all of the normal information you'd expect plus one for counties which would go along with what Homefryes said. Micheal 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the infobox on the OH-1/2/3 pages, I kinda agree with what Homefryes said, that and it's pretty much similar with those used in other state highway pages(eg. Georgia) so it looks consistent across state projects. Micheal 05:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can get the coding changed on "infobox road" to show "OH" instead of "SR" when Ohio is selected as the type. Thoughts? Homefryes 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Disregard that suggestion. It's not going to be entertained, as ODOT uses "SR" and not "OH" in their terminology. Regardless, I'd still like to propose the use of "infobox road" for Ohio. Homefryes 21:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused here - so the infobox at Kentucky State Highway 7 works as long as OH is changed to SR? That's no problem. As I stated, it is customizable, but note that adding stuff like major intersections or information that can easily be listed in the main body should not be added to the infobox. It should be short and concise. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. That was in ref to Infobox Road (all-encompassing template) displays "SR" when Ohio is the type entered in the variables. My only issue w/ SR in the infobox is when the route terminates at the state line, it's a little ambiguous. One only has the shield to differentiate -- and the article's link, of course. Otherwise, SR in the infobox is fine. So I guess we need to agree on whether we will use Infobox Road (which shows "SR") or create our own homegrown infobox with "OH" as the coding. I do like Infobox Road for its other features, and wouldn't want to lose that capability.

On the topic of cities and junctions in the infobox, I agree that shorter is better. I don't mind a handful of junctions. I would like to propose that the only junctions that land in the infobox would be with Interstates or other limited-access highways only (Ohio 11 for example). I think cities in the infobox is redundant, but would much prefer seeing counties (like Infobox Road has). Not in list-form, but separated by a comma, as is used on other states' articles. Responses, anyone? Homefryes 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Side comment from a neighboring WP (PA) member: depending on what the consensus ends up being (whether to use "SR" or "OH"), the abbreviation that Infobox road uses can be edited here. Regards, TMF ^{T - C} 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The KY Road infobox template has comma seperations for counties and cities, but if the city listing is in the body of the text, it can be removed. Major junctions could be listed in the infobox if its not excessive, but we need to come up with a set standard on what should go in there and what should not. Your example is fine with me, as Ohio defines limited-access as a highway that has controlled access points, such as expressways and freeways that do not need to have interchanges. Limited-access is on, for instance, US 52 between New Boston and Chesapeake although it has intersections and interchanges - and signs on the ROW fencing indicates this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with counties in, cities out. As for junctions, I wouldn't quibble if someone included US 52 if the junction is part of the limited-access portion. Route 82 is limited-access around Warren, but east of that it has interchanges at 3 state highways and a grade-level intersection at Route 7; and it has grade-level intersections with all county and township roads east of Warren as well, with one exception. But the speed limit is (I recall) at least 60; therefore, I would list it as a junction for at least the 3 state routes and possibly Route 7 as well. Conversely, I would NOT list any of these routes around Warren and points east as major junctions for Route 82 except for Route 11 (and its terminus at US 62). How does that sound? So the only remaining issues I'm aware of are (1) the redesigned route shields and my getting them loaded to the Commons (with the naming convention OH-X.svg (thru XXX)), and (2) agreeing on either SR or OH in the infobox when OH is the type designated. The infobox should allow the editor to use the neighboring states as well (where termini are at state lines) and that state's route shield and name will appear. Agreed?

I'm changing my stance on all limited-access highways being considered as "major junctions." I was testing Infobox road on Route 7, and if all junctions with limited-access highways are included, it gets mighty long! So I'm going to take a step backward and suggest only junctions with 2-digit interstates. Homefryes 14:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure

I would like to suggest a standardized format for each route’s page; some sections can be optional. WP:NYSR uses the following:

Infobox information

Articles should use a standard template that is widely used by other sibling Wikiprojects. We are deciding whether to use Template:Infobox road or create our own similar infobox for Ohio. Proposed items that should be included in the infobox are:

• listing of counties, separated by commas
• Major junctions – only to include junctions between the featured route and limited-access routes.

We are proposing the cities should not be listed in the infobox, but rather under a separate heading in the body of the article. All known info should be supplied in the infobox.

If there are no objections, I suggest we start using Infobox road for all the articles. Homefryes 14:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Main section

This is the untitled section that describes the route. It might be helpful for formatting to use {{TOCleft}} at the top of this section to display the table of contents on the top left, followed by the main description of the route. Depending on the route this section may just name the direction (E/W or N/S) and termination points, or may go into more detail. After seeing a news-ticker item the week of 8/1/06, in which the president of Wikipedia was stressing quality not quantity of articles submitted, I have decided (for articles that I create) that this section does not need to be wordy and extremely detailed. My suggested inclusions here would be detailed descriptions of the termini of the route, a general description of the route’s characteristics, perhaps major rivers crossed, or other points of interest that wouldn’t be covered below.

I even propose NOT having a “Route description” section. I think everything descriptive could be covered in the “Main section,” and that a paragraph – possibly two at the most – should be more than sufficient there.

Towns along the route

Summary of towns along the route. Depending on the length of the route this may include only major towns, or it could include minor towns and even unincorporated villages, if they’re significant enough to the local area.

Major intersections

List of the state routes, U.S. routes, Interstate routes and, optionally, county routes that this route intersects with in table form. See the “Major intersections table” section below.

History

Any historical information known about the route should be noted.

Miscellanea

Any trivia or facts about a route (any interesting information that doesn't belong in the History section) should be placed in this section.

See also

Place all internal links here.

References

Place all references here, using the <ref></ref> tags in the article and the <references/> tag in this section.

External links

Place all external links which are not references here.

Standardization of route shields

I have noticed, and have contacted KC8YNJ regarding this issue, that we have a standardization problem with regards to the Ohio state route shields that have been created:

• Varying font sizes on some of the 2-digit shields
• The size for the 3-digit shields is 671x600px, and in my research, I’ve concluded that the size should be 750x600px (which is in accordance with what other states’ projects are using). I hope to show a photograph to show my findings here – am waiting for permission from the photographer, but the email link seems to be outdated.
• There are Ohio shields on Wikipedia as well as on the Commons under slightly different names. This should be cleaned up (having on the Commons only would be sufficient), and I would recommend that the name be shortened to something a little more concise and editor-friendly, as other states’ projects have. OH-### would be my first choice, and Ohio-### my second.

I am more than willing to take on the daunting task of creating these shields to specs – using various photographs as a basis for what is standard and what is not, and then getting all the links changed over to the new schematic. I am certainly open to showing my proposals for what is “standard” regarding the shields before settling on parameters.

I replied to your comments on my talk page about font sizes and stuff. Micheal 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a sample of what I've created, based on photos from Dan Garnell’s Ohio Highway Ends, matching the font size specifically to the pictures. I came up with a standard based on newer shields from the site (Ohio has not always been very consistent).

These have been loaded to the Commons, each with the OH-X.svg (thru -XXX) name, as discussed here. I can upload the remainder upon agreement from anyone who wishes to chime in.

I have no issue against loading the rest to Commons, these are excellent shields. Micheal 11:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded all new standardized shields with the naming convention OH-X.svg thru OH-XXX.svg, and they can be found here. Homefryes 14:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, then, now that this is done, we probably should IfD the shields at Ohio State Highway X.svg. -- Grev 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. (edit) However, we will be left with a bunch of holes in the existing infoboxes until we get them all updated. I would still like feedback regarding using "infobox road" instead of the home-grown infobox, in a move to use something that's more standard across the other projects (it has been recoded for the new shields, and I see the other infobox has as well). If there are no objections, then we should get those done before we IfD the old shields. Homefryes 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Major intersections table

I would like to propose the use a junctions table like what is found on WP:NYSR. It could be optional, as it would certainly be overkill for short routes (like Ohio 85), but would be very useful for routes that intersect with even a few routes, and especially those that traverse two or more counties.

I welcome input regarding any and all of my suggestions above, and would like to hear others as well. This is certainly not an attempt to “take over” this project. I just want to see it be better than it is, and I hope others will agree that there is some room for improvement.

Regards to all, Homefryes 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose we standardize it, similar to Vermont Route 279. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have been working on this with major help from TwinsMetsFan. He upgraded the table for the Pennsylvania project (see sample), and put together a similar table for Ohio. I have put it to use on Ohio State Highway 14, along with some other proposals I've put forth (this article did not previously exist). If everyone likes it, I will post the procedures for building these tables on the project page. Homefryes 14:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Has the junctions table been standardized? I've been using it as described on the wikiproject page, and it seems to fit well. Although, it doesn't say whether mileage in this table should be county-based or state-based. The SLDs only give county-based mileage, though calculating state-based mileage is usually straightforward. On the other hand, things get tricky when routes have discontiguous sections within the same county, especially given the way the SLDs "ignore" the out-of-county mileage. In this case, county-based mileage is far from intuitive and IMO should not be used in the junction table; instead, state-based mileage should be used, and can be calculated with a little bit of diligence. (SR 161 is probably among the trickiest. I did the junction table this morning, and the county-based mileages just looked weird between Plain City and Dublin. So I put forth the extra effort and converted it all to state-based mileage.) For routes that don't enter any county more than once, however, should county-based mileage be acceptable, or do we want to use state-based mileage for all routes? Vid the Kid - Does this font make me look fat? 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Regardless of the poll's outcome, here are some official OH DOT docuemtns with the official correct name "State Route X". Now all we have to wait for is to see if State Route X (Ohio) wins or Ohio State Route X wins (in my opinion, hopefully the prior one =|).

• [1]
• Any press release e.g. [2]
• Construction status, e.g. [3]

In total, 7,250 documents on ODOT [4].

Conversely, There is ONE document on ODOT that calls is "Ohio State Route X" [5] (5 results, 1 correct):

• [6]

atanamir 19:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally for "route" over "highway." I'm not going to get into the debate here, and will definitely support the outcome fully. But once that's over and done, I'd like to see us come to an agreement on "route" vs. "highway" here on the Ohio articles. Homefryes ^Say•_Do 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just mentioning we should use "Route" over "Highway", sorry for bringing that last part up. atanamir 20:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it's best to wait to make that change. Most of the articles are "Ohio State Highway X," and to change them one way or the other could be a waste of time. Homefryes ^Say•_Do 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll

Directions

• Please add your name using the format # '''Support''' ~~~ (three tildes) below the principle which you endorse. You cannot vote more than once but you can discuss.
• DO NOT change and/or otherwise edit votes that are not yours (except for those of confirmed abusive sockpuppets, to be nullified only by one of the six judging admins, and those who have not reached the 100-edit threshold, in which case anyone may strike out).

Reminder

• Voting commences at 23:59, Sunday, September 3, 2006 (UTC).
• Voting ends 23:59, Tuesday, September 12, 2006 (UTC).
• The current time is 01:26, Tuesday, May 7, 2024 (UTC).

The following is a transclusion from another page. Edits (like commenting and voting) are made by clicking the "edit" links to the right of the headings below. This will redirect you to the original page's edit box. You can't make edits to the section below by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top of this page (you will only see the transclusion code). Your edits will be viewable here, the original page, and on the second page of the State Route Naming Conventions poll. – Homefryes Say•Do 14:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohio

If anyone feels that there should be other conventions on the table in accordance with Principle I (such as "Ohio Highway X" or "Ohio Route X"), please feel free to add them below, including a brief reason you feel this should be included (a sentence is sufficient, as have been provided with 1 and 2).

Convention 1: <Ohio> State Highway X

This is the format currently in place on nearly all of the articles.

Convention 2: <Ohio> State Route X

The Ohio Department of Transportation uses "state route" as their naming convention [7].

1. Support – Having lived in and near Ohio for more than half of my life, it is my experience that "state route" is the commonly used term by residents and media alike. — Homefryes ^Say•_Do
2. Support per nom and Homefryes. --TMF ^{T - C} 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Nyttend I've occasionally heard "State Highway __", but "State Route __" is far more common.
4. Support per nom. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. --myselfalso 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support as a resident and daily user of state-maintained roads, and beacuse it sounds right. Einstine85 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support as long as it is generally agreed upon. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Endorse - Seems uncontroversial. --CBD 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Endorse Syrthiss 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Endorse CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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) 00:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Usage of signs?

When I put together the little bit on Ohio State Highway 638, I put in a tiny shield instead of the number "638" at the beginning of the text. Curious on your thoughts: bad idea, good idea, etc. Nyttend 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to say probably not a good idea. Somewhere, it's probably stated that it doesn't follow the guidelines of a good article in general, and maybe someone will post a link to the guidelines. Since we have the shield in the infobox, my opinion is it shouldn't be in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homefryes (talk • contribs)

I have to agree with Homefryes. Using a shield in place of the number 638 in the article introduction is inappropriate as a substitution for text, especially in the bolded restatement of the article title. That's my view on this issue. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The "alt" tags generated in this way contain not the intended text being substituted, but an unwieldy filename. The result is far from either semantically correct, or pleasantly rendered by a non-visual user agent. Vid the Kid - Does this font make me look fat? 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Project Improvements Implemented

Since I posted my proposal for project improvements nearly a month ago, I have received no feedback against moving forward. Therefore, I have posted the guidelines for articles on the project page. I have also put together an extensive table on my userpage which shows what articles and redirects currently exist, as well as which infobox is currently in use on articles, and what other sections need to be added, upgraded, etc. Regards, — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about common names

I've noticed that a lot of articles use the form "Ohio 527" rather than the "State Route 527" listed at WP:USSH. Is this a common name outside Wikipedia? --NE2 19:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have done a little research first. It looks like it is used sometimes in the media: [8] So that brings us to the question of whether we should use it in articles. Would it be acceptable to start articles "State Route 527, also known as SR 527, Route 527, or Ohio 527,"? --NE2 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I lived within an earshot of it for 18 years. I've never heard it be referred to as the state route number outside of official publications. Most would prefer to call it the Robert C Byrd Bridge, or whatever Street/Avenue it lies on. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about routes in general, not specifically SR 527. --NE2 19:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I would use the proper form that was decided upon. In the case of WP:USSH, State Route X would probably be the best path for this. It would be too cumersome to go in to every article and add in, "... also known SR 527, Route 527, and Ohio 527". Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What about links to other articles, like tho "Ohio 7" link in Ohio State Route 833? Do you think it's OK to use the "Ohio 527" or "OH 527" form there, or should those be changed to read "State Route 527" or "SR 527"? --NE2 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been upgrading the articles little by little, and have been changing the "Ohio ###" tags to the fuller "State Route ###" tags. In the body of the article, the routes should be called their proper names – likewise for U.S. Routes and Interstates. In areas where shorthand is desired (like infoboxes and junction tables), Ohio State Routes should be abbreviated as "SR" (not "OH"), as that has been shown to be the abbreviation used by the Ohio Department of Transportation — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I were to run AWB, changing Ohio ### to State Route ### and OH ### to SR ###? --NE2 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't suppose that would be a bad idea at all. The only thing I object to, as is being discussed elsewhere, is changing [[Ohio State Route X|SR X]] to [[State Route X (Ohio)|SR X]]. But to fix what you're suggesting immediately above, that would be just fine by me — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WAIT!!! There are references to external pages that use the name "Ohio X." These should not be changed, as they are the official names for the pages to which they refer. So that may prevent the use of AWB on the pages — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that just means I need to be careful. AWB is all manual, and you can edit before saving. --NE2 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then, yes – the instances that should not be changed will be found in the external links sections when they do occur. Thanks — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

Anyone have the stub template, I only ask beacuse Route 2C has been hijacked by the wiki for Ontario (Canada?) I would much rather it have the correct template. Einstine85 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's {{Ohio-road-stub}}, which I have tagged Route 2C with. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Routes that are article-worthy

I would like to add a clarification to the project that routes need to be signed or historical to be worthy of their own article. An issue has arisen in reference to Ohio State Route 2C as to whether this page should exist (see its talk page). While SR 2C does exist on ODOT's Straight Line Diagrams as a route, there are many connector routes listed here all over the state, many of which are one way directional alternates and such, but others are connecting routes, such as SR 2C. I do not feel that these routes are deserving on their own articles, and in many cases, I don't believe they are even worth a mention. I will add the proposed clarification in about a week from now based on feedback from the editors — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not think that would be worthy. I've tried to draw the conclusion at WP:KYSH since someone added connector routes that were .01 mile long or something to that effect. I do add minor routes, however, such as Kentucky Route 2333, but they have some meat to the article. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think these connector routes may be worth mentioning, especially if their purpose can be explained, but probably not on their own articles. A subsection in the article on the "parent" route should be sufficient. A redirect should be created (i.e. Ohio State Route 2C → Ohio State Route 2) but only if the connector has a subsection on the parent article. And only one redirect should be necessary, corresponding to the agreed-upon naming convention. (Note that List of State Routes in Ohio links to connector routes.) Vid the Kid - Does this font make me look fat? 10:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The question of what to do with these auxiliary routes and making shields for them came up on my talk page, and I feel it's best to post my answer here for open debate. These routes as defined by ODOT and shown in the Straight Line Diagrams are connectors, directional alternates, etc., designated by C, D, J, and other letters. You would never see these signed with these letters in your travels around the state. They should be noted in the main route's article in the Junction table, in such cases as where there are 2 separate one-way directional roads for the same state route, or a connector road that joins two state routes; but it's superfluous for these to have their own separate articles. For example, as one is traveling on State Route 2, he would not see a shield for State Route 2C which is a connector route between SR 2 and SR 163. Therefore, it is my considered opinion that while ODOT recognizes (for maintenance and inventory purposes) SR 2C as a route, the public is probably not even going to know it exists as such, so why would we need an article for that connector route? Even alternates and bypasses should have a sub-heading under the main route's article. Alternate and Bypass shields exist for use in junction tables, and are used in conjunction with the route's shield for designation, with redirect pages to that subheading (see Ohio State Route 4B for an example of redirecting, and the table on the main route's page for an example of the usage for the Bypass shield). — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the special routes do not need their own pages, but their information should be added to the parent page. Milktaco 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

further agreed, by the person whom created the 2C page Einstine85 16:36, 21 February 2007 (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 16:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect routes?

State Routes 200, 765, and 766 are not listed on John Simpson's page, they are not listed on the ODOT straight line diagrams page, and to my knowledge, they don't exist or were decommissioned, in which case they should be moved to the decommissioned section. Anyone know differently? Milktaco 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should be removed from List of State Routes in Ohio. No need to move them to the decommissioned section. If it's deemed that they once existed, they can go there when there are articles created. Those auxiliary routes should also be removed (the C's and J's, and so on). — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template problem

As I just created State Route 273, I noticed that the infobox link for "Ohio Highways" goes to List of numbered highways in Ohio. Could this be changed to List of State Routes in Ohio? I looked at the coding for the template and immediately decided that I wasn't the appropriate person to make this change. Nyttend 01:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but the US highways system works like that also, where it doesn't link back to the page with the list of routes. Maybe it's just modeled after that system and hasn't been changed to avoid confusion. In any event, you're right, it would make more sense to link to the list of state routes. Milktaco 20:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of changing the main link, I added some code to Template:Infobox road/OH links to add links to the Interstate, U.S. route and State Route in Ohio lists on the bottom of the infobox. I think this is probably the best way to link to both the numbered highways page and the SR page, and, hopefully, resolve the issue brought up by the original poster. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done! Milktaco 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ODOT

I think the ODOT page should be included in this project, but I wanted a consensus before I added it. Tell me what you think. Polypmaster 18:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

consensus in the Transport project was to add it to Ohio State Highways Project. I would like an outside source to evaluate it as I have spent considerable time on it and don't think I would make a far judgement. Polypmaster 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ODOT rating

I have made significant improvements to the Ohio Department of Transportation recently and have nominated it as a good article. I would like some feedback on what still needs to be improved and if I should nominate it for A or FA status. I don't think it is the latter yet, but your thoughts would be very helpful. Thanks. Polypmaster 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This page looks great and, in my opinion, should be considered an article. I don't know about FA yet, but keep up the good work! Milktaco 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it should be considered an article too ;-) I am working to implement the improvements listed on the talk page. Others feel free to add them also. Polypmaster 21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The ODOT article has passed GA article review. I know this article still needs some work to be FA quality, but I would love some feedback on what is still lacking. This is the first state DOT article to get anywhere near GA quality, so Ohioans should be proud. I know ODOT is not exactly the most interesting topic for most, but for the people editing the road articles, this may be of some value. Thank you. Polypmaster 13:36, 9 August 2007 (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} 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FEUS

Template:FEUS has 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} 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Pages for retired routes due to Interstate/U.S.

It looks like any number used by an Interstate or U.S. highway in Ohio has a redirect to the respective article from the same-numbered Ohio state route (e.g. Ohio State Route 80 redirects to Interstate 80 in Ohio). Technically this is incorrect. While it's easy to be persuaded by John Simpson's pages to assume that that's the case, since he calls everything "Route xx" (even I was persuaded, and stated so in May, 1999 - Messages 19, 21, and 24), ODOT is consistent in its designation labels, clearly identifying the three types of sub-systems. In other words, Ohio Route 70 is not the "hidden" designation for I-70, but instead the Ohio Route 70 designation was retired to accomodate the I-70 designation.

Therefore, I propose that any such Ohio State Route xx article be made into a disambiguation page, such as

Ohio State Route 6 is a former designation retired to 
accomodate U.S. 6.  Former State Route 6 
designations were located along

* State Route 4,
State Route 73, and
U.S. 25, the latter now Ohio State Route 25
in part (1923-1926)

* U.S. 250 (1926-1929)

* State Route 283 (1929-1932)

I already did something like that, having 6 redirect to 283 and 90 redirect to 193, since the respective current routes encompass the most of the respective former routes, the most recent version for SR-6.

Is either method possible? Mapsax 00:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree, but would use redirects like State Route 6 (Ohio pre-1927), so an article talking about the pre-1927 SR 6 can link to it. See for instance Virginia State Route 64. --NE2 13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK, although the redirects, including the two I already did, would only be approximations in certain cases, since there wasn't always a wholesale 1-to-1 replacement of the old number (e.g. the old number would be replaced by an extension of another in one stretch and be given a new number in another). Mapsax 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"1962 Renumbering" project article?

I assume that a page on the 1962 renumbering is in the works to go along with those for 1923 and 1927, since the 1962 map available at the ODOT collection includes both the old and new numbers as well as a message box at the bottom about the changeover. Mapsax 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion of state route articles?

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson has, in the last day or so, deleted dozens — perhaps hundreds — of state highway articles, as you can see here, apparently all under CSD A1, which reads:

1. No context. Very short articles with little or no context for their statements. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car and makes people laugh." Context is different than content, treated in A3, below.

I've protested on his talk page, and seeing that he's made several contributions since early on the 4th, I'm assuming that he'll get back to me soon. I'll keep you updated. Nyttend 00:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD-A1 points out that there must be context within the article. These were simply an infobox or an infobox and one other line - that amounts to no context. Therefore, Jeffrey O. Gustafson was correct in deleting them master son^{T - C} 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#If_you_thought_stubs_were_safe_from_deletion... master son^{T - C} 01:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the deletions. We don't create placeholder articles to make links blue. The pages can be recreated later if you actually take time to make them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:31, 5 October 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) 05:17, 8 November 2007 (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) 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ODOT website restructure

ODOT has launched a new wesbite, presumedly as a larger redo of the Ohio.gov site. That means that scores of URLs are now dead, most notably the link to the SLDs (was http://www.dot.state.oh.us/techservsite/availpro/Road_%20Infor/SLD/, now it's http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/techservsite/availpro/Road_%20Infor/SLD/). Mapsax (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Memorial highways

Memorial names can be referenced at the individual links/code sections at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5533 . There are only around 100, so it wouldn't take long to edit each respective article. (I've already done some.) Mapsax (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend against including these except where the public uses them. --NE2 21:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

While the names are not in wide use, there are full size freeway guide signs for some, so it seems that the names on them would be notable enough to include in the articles. [Added] Examples: [9][10][11] If people see these signs while traveling, they can research the names that they see by going to the WP articles. Mapsax (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:30, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

A reminder that you should give a link to the alert page when you are using the display=none setting.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are subscribed to the Alerts but neither display the alerts nor give a link to them. Giving a link on your main page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio State Highways/Article alerts) or removed the display=none parameter from the subscription banner would be a good idea.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Straight-Line Diagram legend

Page 2 of the SLD legend gives the meanings of letter suffixes of routes. I mention this because I just noticed "Route 14 Truck" section on Ohio State Route 14 which I just changed to the correct "Route 14 Temporary". Mapsax (talk) 19:53, 12 May 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

John Simpson site

I've noticed on at least the state highway pages I have on my watchlist that periodically, a certain editor will remove the external link to The Unofficial Ohio State Highways Web Site by John Simpson or the specific state route page from that site from the article's external links section. While I understand it's "unofficial", the information used to make the site comes from reliable sources (old state highway maps), so I don't see why they shouldn't be included as an external link if they aren't used as a citation since they provide additional relevant information and are non-commercial. Usually they have been removed under the edit summary of "inapplicable link" or something similar. Was there a previous consensus to remove this site from external links sections that I need to be aware of? What are everyone else's thoughts? --JonRidinger (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They should not be used a a citation, as it is a self-published source, and as for inclusion as an external link only, I'm skeptical of any site that hasn't been updated since 2001. Mind you it's not like the site needs updating all the time, but I'm sure that things have changed in the last 9 years. Of course, Ohio currently has 371 of the 4917 stubs tagged under WP:USRD, for a total of 7.5%. Maybe you can identify a few articles that can be expanded to Start- or C-Class to help reduce the count? Maybe some can be merged together? Imzadi 1979 → 10:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If the website's information is coming from reliable sources, why does it state "The information contained at this site comes from the many state maps and road atlases I have collected as well as from information I have collected through misc.transport.road and other Internet sources." MTR is not a reliable source. John Simpson doesn't qualify as an "expert" on Ohio Highways, unless his site has been quoted in newspapers, or ODOT starts referring queries to the page. The biggest reason I'm skeptical is that the last update was almost nine years ago. Like I said above, it's not like things change every day, but surely ODOT has made some changes since then that call for updates to the site? Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I've gone through quite a bit of his stuff and most highway pages are simply putting into words what he finds on the old state maps, which are now available on the ODOT website to verify, particularly the earlier alignments of each road. I know for me, it made it easier to write some of the route histories with that as a guide to look at the maps. It's the more recent history that it obviously falls short on, though in at least this part of Ohio, there aren't many (if any) state routes that have had major route changes in the past 10 years or more. I don't have a problem removing it as an EL, though I don't particularly have a problem with it staying either since there is a lot of valid information. What about the end-photos site? --JonRidinger (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The various sub-sites at state-ends.com are great to include because unless all of the various photographers for the different photos were individually contacted, and they all agreed to have their photos uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons and included in the various articles, the content can't be duplicated. Imzadi 1979 → 05:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I see them both as fansites that are good and relevant resources for people who are really into highways. On a sidenote, most of the state ends pictures can be duplicated in the same manner that any public domain images are added to Wikipedia: someone near them goes and takes a picture of the signs (since that's pretty much all the photos on there that I've seen) and uploads it as a PD or CC file. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember though that our audiences isn't really the roadgeek community, although it is important to do things right by them, it is the general public. My rule of thumb has been to do a Google search for the article subject and append "-wikipedia -wikimedia" to drop out the Wikipedia articles and images from the results. Whatever shows up on the first page that isn't related to the subject highway purely by address reliably makes for good EL candidates. Then I evaluate the candidates for suitability. Yes, we could duplicate the photos from the Ends site, but unless you're volunteering to duplicate the completed efforts of the website, a link is fine. Of course the website is more than just photos, and even if the photos were duplicated and uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons, many articles wouldn't be long enough to include them. They'd get shuffled off to a Commons category/gallery anyway. (In-article image galleries are falling out of favor.) Why reinvent the wheel? Imzadi 1979 → 06:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm fully aware of the audience we're going for/the audience we have and the purpose of ELs. If an EL fits the criteria at WP:EL, even in the slightest, I'm all for it, especially in cases like this where very little info is available on a particular subject and there likely aren't going to be many ELs to begin with. If it fills the role of relevant info, non-opinion, and is non-commercial, then I don't see any reason not to include it. But if the main argument is basically that the Simpson site is a WP:FANSITE because he's not an "authority" then state-ends would fall into that as well since it is also largely a fansite and the contributors are not recognized authorities that I am aware of. Even in terms of being up to date, many of the Ohio pages are upwards of 8 years old themselves (most recent updates in 2008). And as far as pictures go, I've actually done a bit of photography specifically for Wikipedia articles (NRHP sites for one) and have no problem adding photos to appropriate Commons galleries and putting the links in the associated articles. I'm someone who takes their camera a lot of places I guess. No point in going to the trouble to ask permission if someone can get a picture himself and I'm definitely someone who thinks there are very few articles that shouldn't have any pictures. Really, the vast majority of state highway articles only need maybe an ends photo or two (if any) and one or more of the road itself in different locations (of course, showing the shield somewhere in the picture). Most would probably need just one photo. And yes, I'd much rather have at least one photo in each article than a link to a gallery (the link should be in addition to the pictures in the article). Makes for much easier viewing, especially in longer articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2010 (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 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)