Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Talk:Route 66

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 16:08, 8 May 2012 by Wrh2 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This article was the Collaboration of the week between 13 June 2006 and 19 June 2006.

Discussion[edit]

Having driven all of Route 66, nine days to travel the entire road is more reasonable. Chicago to St. Louis could probably be done, but I would advise stopping at Springfield, Illinois. This also gives time to see St. Louis. St. Louis to Oklahoma City is way too long, so I split it. St. Louis to Springfield (MO) is about six hours on the old highway and eight to nine hours between Springfield (MO) and Oklahoma City. St. Louis to Joplin would be doable. Flagstaff to Los Angeles is too long. With a suggeted side-trip to the Grand Canyon, its about eight-nine hours to Barstow. This also gives plenty of time to celebrate an arrival in Santa Monica! --Rt66lt (July 15, 2005)

That sounds great! Excellent job extending this article. I think there's a lot of work to be done pointing out where the sites are along the trip. --Evan 20:52, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)
I will try to include the sites on the route, but they are numerous and for now I would like to concentrate on getting the directions down. For sites in the larger cities, it would probably be advisable to place them in a seperate section. For many of the more famous ones (Sears Tower, Lincoln's Tomb, Gateway Arch, etc.), it would probably be better to have the reader consult a road atlas, especially those not directly on Route 66. --Rt66lt (July 15, 2005)
I'd actually reverse that; I think a travel itinerary should give directions on things to see and do along the route, as well as good places to R&R at night. --Evan 11:10, 16 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I'm still working on some of the attractions at the end and plan to add a few more into the Route. I still have two or three alternate alignments to write also. I did go ahead and make a link from Wikipedia's article on Route 66 to this page. --Rt66lt, Aug 29, 2005

Hope you don't mind if I fix a couple of things before this comes up for a monthly-destination vote. There were some errors in descriptions of things between Albuquerque and Flagstaff. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:33, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
For what it's worth, Route 66 most likely wouldn't be DOTM before Spring of 2006 since it's not really known as a winter destination, so there should be time to fix anything that needs it. -- Wrh2 11:53, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Links[edit]

I've attempted to add links to city articles for all of the cities mentioned, although I'll admit to being lazy, so many of the links might need some disambiguation. -- Wrh2 15:14, 10 Sep 2005 (EDT)


Should this not link to the wikipedia entry on Route 66 ? It contains much more background already. [in URL format : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_66] 213.118.143.101 08:41, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

Please see Wikitravel:Cooperating with Wikipedia and Wikitravel:Links to Wikipedia for how we link to Wikipedia, then please plunge forward! Maj 10:13, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

Route detail between Chicago and Springfield[edit]

There is an oddity in the route description as 66 passes through Bloomington-Normal (on both of which, btw, I'll be adding text to their respective, separate pages). The article says, "Turn south on Linden Street, west on Willow Street, south on Main Street (Business US 51), on into adjacent Bloomington, and left on Veterans Parkway." (I added the part about Bloomington, which is irrelevant to my question.)

It's been years since I've driven this, but I used to do it almost daily, and I wonder: does one really turn left onto Veterans at this point? That would seem to take one back around the Twin Cities on the Veterans bypass. Or is that currently the only way of getting onto Beich Street? Please check it out. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:55, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

When I passed through there, it seemed strange, too. I can't exactly remember why, but I think its an issue of access, roads having been built, moved, etc.Rt66lt 23:06, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)

Forget Winona[edit]

Should there be a note regarding the total lack of anything in the town of Winona? I recall being pretty disappointed that there wasn't even a gas station or cafe there. Maj 10:15, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

Printing problem[edit]

If I try to print this, it stops about half-way through (right under the notes section about Texola to Amarillo). Anyone else have this problem?Fastestdogever 13:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Giant city list[edit]

I'm thinking of making a page that lists all of the towns that Route 66 passes through. I'm planning a trip across Route 66 this summer, and I'd like to be able to print the guides to take with me, and with a huge list it would be much simpler. Also, the itinerary is good, but there are many people who want to travel certain sections, say a weekend in Oklahoma, and a list of all of the small towns and unusual attractions would come in handy. I'd like some input about possible ways to do this, in particular how to handle the alternate alignments. The best I could come up with is the way this site formats different routes in columns like this. First off, though, I would use the cities on the main route of the itinerary & later add in the alternate alignments. Any thoughts? -- Fastestdogever 19:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting thought. Maybe as a sub-page of this one, say Route 66/Cities? I can see real value to it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 23:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I was planning on spending a lot of time researching & looking at maps to find all of the cities on the route, and came across wikipedia's list. Is this something I can just copy over (and change to out article naming)? Can a list of towns be copyrighted? -- Fastestdogever 00:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't copy it over. Yes, a list can be copyrighted, though facts cannot be. I'd like to see more thoughts on this develop, before we condone it. Stacy, could you create an example of what you had in mind in your sandbox? I have an alternative idea too, which is using categories. I can provide an example of this (I think) but it'll be a few hours before I get around to it. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 01:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
In principle, it's OK to simply link to that Wikipedia article; see Wikitravel:Links to Wikipedia for the details. However, on looking at the WP list, there are a lot of places cited there that fall into the wide-spot-in-the-road category and may not be current towns, just grain elevators or abandoned gas stations. (Example: Wikipedia:Anaconda, New Mexico, which is no longer a town, but just a pile of radioactive mine tailings.) You'd never call Anaconda a "town" if you were following the itinerary. It's TMI (no pun intended, just"too much information").
I do think your proposed list has real value to the traveler and can see two approaches to making it. One, create a separate article with that subset of the WP list that actually corresponds to real places. No copyright issues on doing that, but it'll take some work and some judgment calls. Two, and maybe duplicating Andrew's thinking, create a "Category:Destinations on Route 66" or something similar, and build into the articles that we have on such destinations. We've never done that with Itineraries, but it might be a good idea; I'll start a discussion there. Please don't do the category until it's been discussed, however. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 10:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
In doing research, one thing I've come across several times is the mention that Route 66 took so many different routes, and as long as you know what town is next you'll be darn close to it. Although I'm personally an extreme list maker/planner, there are others who don't like such structure. In that case, a list that says:
  • Town A
  • Town B
  • Town C
would allow them to figure out their own way from town to town. I understand that we don't want to list every small, nothing town, but if there are small, nothing areas perhaps we could still mention them. Say Nothingville has no restaurants, hotels, etc., but does have something a traveler is interested in. In the case of Amboy, which, after I made the article, I realized that it does not really deserve its own page, but still should be mentioned. Maybe the list could be something like:
  • City A - huge town w/ yada yada yada
  • Amboy - see the Amboy Crater. The hike to the crater and back to the highway can take 2-3 hours. Also see Roy's, which is no longer open but used to be a Route 66 stop
  • City B - huge town w/ yada yada yada
I'm worried that if we make a category & tag R66 towns with a tag, that they'll just show up in ABC order. Check out User:Fastestdogever/Sandbox for the list I made using the towns in the article. -- Fastestdogever 10:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Found what I was looking for - Category:Communities on U.S. Route 66 is what I don't want. From a travelers perspective, not a very good way to list the towns. If we create a category, won't it end up looking like this? -- Fastestdogever 11:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that WP category wouldn't help a traveler much. It could be made more useful by setting up subcategories ("Illinois Communities on US Route 66", etc.) -- indeed, I may plunge forward and do that on Wikipedia -- but the fine-grained sequencing would still be missing. All of this is convincing me that a Rt66 subpage is probably the right way to go. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 12:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I tagged Flagstaff as "Route 66" and while a category hasn't officially been made you can see that it would be alphabetical. See [1]. An interesting idea I've had is to couple tags with geographic coordinates, which would organize categories based on geographic location. The problem with that is it'd require a lot of programming and tech work. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 20:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The geographic coordinates idea sounds pretty neat, although I wonder if it would work. Surely there are parts on this road that, when traveling from Town A to Town B, you have to go slightly east. This would probably create some real confusion on the part of the traveler. I'm thinking a manual list is going to be the best solution to this. -- Fastestdogever 11:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Agree with Stacy. Another reason for going the manual route is so that the "alternative alignments" can be dealt with efficiently, which is a big deal in New Mexico (where I am) because the alternative route is quite long and diverges by many tens of miles from the canonical one. Looks like we'll just have to bite the bullet here. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 11:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I went ahead & made the Route 66/Cities page. How's it look? Fastestdogever 11:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Looks excellent to me. I made a few minor tweaks (explanation at the beginning, additions to the "original alignment" in New Mexico) and added a reference in the main article. Thanks for doing that -- it strengthens the article! -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Attraction list considered harmful[edit]

The giant attraction list at the end of the current article is very difficult to use. I've shifted the attractions along the stretch I followed a few weeks back into the days in question, please follow suit. Jpatokal 17:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not convinced that's an improvement. A separate attraction-list page, segmented by state as has been done for the "cities" page (see Route 66/Cities and previous discussion item above), might be better. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
But why should the driving instructions and things to see be separated? On Route 66, getting there is all the fun, and it makes a lot of sense to me to merge the route and the highlights along it. Jpatokal 19:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I personally don't like the attraction list either. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me to have the information separated. I also don't think that every sight on Route 66 should be mentioned on this page either - just the ones that are truly a "don't miss" on Route 66. For example, I'm not sure that removing the St. Francis Cathedral and the Frontier Restaurant (both listed under attractions) from the page would diminish the quality of the article. That's one of the reasons we decided to create Route 66/Cities - so the road-tripper would easily be able to find sights & activities in specific towns. -- Fastestdogever 20:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the Frontier is a good example of why I think the list has value. Viewed as a dining place in Albuquerque, it's just another cheap burger joint, worth mentioning in the "non-New-Mexican/Budget" category (where it is indeed mentioned) but with little to distinguish it from other such places there. For the Route 66 driver, it borders on iconic, being a quintessential college dive from the days when Albuquerque was ten miles long and one street (Central Avenue, where Route 66 goes) wide. You won't get that sense of the place from the Albuquerque article, and if you try to move all that stuff into the body of the Route 66 article (and do the same for the other places like it), it'll be the body that gets impractically long, not the list at the end.
The attractions list, IMO, should not be so much about "don't miss" things, but rather about places that exemplify the history that makes this itinerary worth following. That's not the same thing, and it's one reason why the information should be associated with the itinerary rather than the towns along the way. Yes, the list could be incorporated into the narrative text. The result will be a ridiculously long text. Is that an improvement? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 21:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess what the main issue is with having the attraction listings at the bottom of the page is that it is confusing. I can see how it would be aggravating to use this itinerary and have to flip back 10 pages to make sure you don't miss one of the attractions that is listed. I do agree that having too much information within each section is also undesirable, but perhaps we could come up with an alternative way to format the information. -- Fastestdogever 22:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

That's exactly why I'm suggesting a separate page, indexed to the state level. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Could we just work off of the Route 66/Cities page? I'm sure there's something Route 66-ish is many many towns. -- Fastestdogever 22:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maps[edit]

I started transcribing the described route to Google Maps, but then realized someone had already done a good job of itGoogle Earth link. I see from Wikitravel:External links that linking to maps is discouraged. On the other hand, Route 66 is a poorly-marked route and so the primary thing you need is a map. I am inclined to make an exception and link directly to this Google Map. Additionally, we could make a subpage from this page that includes turn-by-turn directions in a more readable format (rather than as paragraphs) that could include maps of at least the urban areas, and also links to external map sources. 72.74.195.51 18:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No road there - Elk City to Sayre, OK[edit]

In the third paragraph of Oklahoma City to Texola, the sentence is "Where Business I-40 rejoins the interstate, continue west on the north frontage road. Follow this road to Business I-40 in Sayre." However, Google Earth shows the road simply ends at a private driveway at longitude 99D 34' 37.6" and resumes at 99D 35' 04.3". On leaving Elk City, one would have to stay OFF of the Frontage Road, or take a series of country roads to the north to get around the gap: 1525 metres / .95 miles north along N 1910 Rd, 1600 metres / 1 mile west on E 1140 Rd, then 2663 metres / 1.65 miles south on Cemetery Rd and rejoin the frontage road, a total diversion of 5.78 km / 3.59 miles when the direct route, if it had existed, would have been 2.06 km / 1.28 miles. Gcapp1959 11:48, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

If there are any changes needed it would be great if you could plunge forward and make them - this is an old article, so it's entirely possible that portions are outdated or based on data that is no longer correct. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:33, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Glenrio to Santa Rosa - possible route change - comments?[edit]

Okay, I can't find a NM Hwy 69, but I do find a NM Hwy 129. I wonder if 69 is a mistake.

Now, on reaching Santa Rosa, viewing it from Google Earth, it seems to me that the original route is better represented by exiting I-40 at a more easterly point, at Exit 277 (U.S. Route 84 South), turning right then following Will Rogers Drive westward. It flows more naturally from a curving frontage road just east of Exit 277, and on through Exit 275 (the parclo interchange). If nobody finds any illogic here, I would go ahead and change the entry. I've chosen this revision for my "virtual walk" along Route 66, the area I passed through yesterday.

By the way, is there any thought to giving instructions for an eastward journey along the highway, where critical in terms of ramps and one-way streets? Gcapp1959 10:55, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

If there are differences in the Eastbound route then noting that probably makes sense, although hopefully such distinctions will be minimal. Thanks for keeping this article up-to-date - along a route of this length portions are bound to change, so updates are always appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:04, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages