|(26 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)|
Excuse the extremely long prose here but it's greatly needed...
Excuse the extremely long prose here but it's greatly needed...
:::::Peter, can I reiterate my question from above: What, exactly, do you feel a user should see when she searches for (say) "Interstate 95" in Wikitravel? [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 19:21, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Peter, can I reiterate my question from above: What, exactly, do you feel a user should see when she searches for (say) "Interstate 95" in Wikitravel? [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 19:21, 7 December 2008 (EST)
| || |
In lieu of highway articles, how about..?== |+|
|−|I have been kicking around this idea in my head for some time now, and the above conversation makes it a good time to throw it out there. I don't think creating a separate article for every highway is necessarily a good idea because it will duplicate a ton of information from city and regional articles. However, it would be a convenient thing for the user to have an easy way to see all the city articles along a given route. I do think this information is highly relevant to the traveller, so my proposed solution is to use a template to make a tidy little box for destination articles that shows highways that pass through that destination plus 1) the next destination in each direction for which wikitravel has an article, and 2) the next ''major'' destination in each direction. As an example, in the article for [[ Oklahoma City]], we could have a little box that looks like this: |+|
[[Wikitravel:|page]] has , so this discussion moved [[Wikitravel talk:|]].
|−|<table border="1" RULES=NONE FRAME=BOX align=center ><tr> |+|
[[User:Texugo|Texugo]] :, December 2008 (EST)
|−|<td align=right><font size="1"><b>[[Amarillo]]</b> ・・・・・ [[Weatherford]] ・・・・ </font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=center><font size="1">'''W'''</font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=center><font size="1">'''E'''</font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=left><font size="1"> ・・・・ [[Shawnee]] ・・・・・ '''[[Little Rock]]'''</font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=right><font size="1">'''[[Wichita]]''' ・・・・・ [[Edmond]] ・・・・ </font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=center><font size="1">'''N'''</font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=center><font size="1">'''S'''</font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=left><font size="1"> ・・・・ [[Norman]] ・・・・・ '''[[Dallas]]-[[Fort Worth]]'''</font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=right><font size="1">'''[[Wichita Falls]]''' ・・・・・ [[Chickasha]] ・・・・ </font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=center><font size="1">'''SW'''</font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=center><font size="1">'''NE'''</font></td> |+|
|−|<td align=left><font size="1"> ・・・・ [[Stroud (Oklahoma)|Stroud]] ・・・・・ '''[[Tulsa]]'''</font></td> |+|
|−|This would give users the option to navigate through our site as if they are following a highway, and would be more useful for trip-planning because, unlike having different articles for different highways, this offers a visual interface which allows you to change highways at any junction. My suggestion would be that it go at the bottom of the ''Get out'' section, so that it's always in a predictable place. And yes, I realize that will make it look a little similar to some of the templates in use on Wikipedia, but I think this information is very important and useful, especially for countries as big and prone to car-travel as the US or Canada. Feedback? |+|
|−|[[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 03:11, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:I like this idea. The only thing that makes it considerably different from what I have proposed with the highways is that in large cities, many attractions, food, and sleep is far away from the interstate. Additionally, many region or county articles will list things that are not included in the article of the city that's on the highway. Additionally, having individual interstate articles will prevent the need to print ''many'' individual town articles for travelers. Yes, it's hard work and will take a year or two for users to contribute to make these articles, but in my opinion, it's worth it and will be a great asset for Wikitravel . This article is ''far'' from complete(still needs more info & better formatting), but see what I've done with [[Interstate 4#Route|this route section]]. Once I've worked on it a bit, there will be a comprehensive guide to all exits. The individual cities & towns along the interstate are given links to explore what's available in them. Eventually, the "see" & "do" sections will be expanded and placed in order by exit. I was originally thinking (in the above topic) of either not having "eat","sleep", and"drink" sections, but now think it would be better to highlight a few notable places. I'm not sure though...it's not a problem on a 132 mile long interstate...but when it comes to Interstates like 95, 80, 10, 5, etc., having such sections could get lengthy. Before I finish, the interstate articles would ''complement'' your suggested box at the bottom. Anyways, it's late in the night for me, so I'll let others voice their opinion and work on this later. [[User: AHeneen| AHeneen]] 04:35, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::Let's try to keep this thread about my proposal please, if possible. Your idea has its own thread above. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 06:39, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|* Hmmm... In principle, I like the idea. However... Few little things to come to mind. |+|
|−|:* How do we keep the list consistent across conencted articles. E.g. if we have a hypothetical Highway 42 with places A, B, C, E, F, and G, what happens when someone adds place D? It not only needs the Highway Box adding with points A, C, E and G, but also C and E need updating. My concern is that we could end up with missing points and inconsistencies. At least with a highway article, it is a little easier to keep the connections clean. |+|
|−|:* Do we have to call it a Highway box. I know a lot of people know the term, but in Europe we have (allegedly) Euroroutes, the UK has Motorways and some fairly major trunk roads of other types, etc. Perhaps "Route Box" would be a more generic name? (Yes, I know this is being picky, but you did ask! ;) ) |+|
|−|:* Is there any reason we can't use the existing Itinery idea for routes? I just wonder how useful a box that appears at the bottom of the linked pages is. If I were doing a trip in the UK from, say, Durham to Blackpool; I know what roads I am likely to travel along and might want to do some sightseeing on the way. I guess I could use a map, look up place names, then look up wikitravel articles. However, it would be nice to me able to call up a page on the A66 and be able to see a list of places along the way, which an Itinery page would let me do in an easy fashion. |+|
|−|Anyway, I'm sure there are ways around these things, so am quite happy to be told I'm wrong, or to argue things :) |+|
|−|[[User:Nrms|Nrms]] 07:48, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::To respond quickly to your points: |+|
|−|::*Once we got it going, I don't think maintenance would really be any more of a pain than it is with our breadcrumb navigation, and if somebody is a real whiz we could get it partially automated like the breadcrumb navigation is. |+|
|−|::*I don't care what the template is called really-- it doesn't need to be titled in the article anyway. ''Route box'' works just fine and has the advantage of being general enough to include train lines as well. |+|
|−|::*The discussion about having itinerary articles for highways, etc., is above, and I think this box would be useful whether or not we allow highway articles as a general rule. I do think, for example, if you want to find a hotel in a small town near a big city on a certain highway to facilitate an early start in that direction, etc., that this box would be useful. Or if you are planning a longer trip for which multiple routes exist, you could (without consulting maps and looking each place up individually) walk yourself through various routes which use a combination of highways etc., and look at each article along the way to see what you'll pass along the way without having to wade through the avalanche of information an article detailing the entirety of something like US I-40 would present. |+|
|−|::[[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 08:28, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:::Texugo, It does look like a good idea. But but nice with AHeneen, he was just briefly explaining his idea, it is not a big deal. Anyways, while the lovely interstates have logos that can be used on WT, some Canadian ones do not. What are we supposed to do about that? Also, why can't we just mention the highways in Get in or whatever...what is the point of a fancy box? Thanks. [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 10:17, 5 December 2008 (EST). |+|
|−|:I really like it, Texugo, and the box looks beautiful (except I can't see the special characters you're using to separate the cities). It's unobtrusive, provides an alternate way of looking at travel, and would seem to fit in well with the '''Get out''' section. It'd be a ''lot'' of work to implement on a large scale, though. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 11:40, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:: Wikitravel - the road trip edition. The world is criss-crossed with so many routes, of so many different kinds, we can't attempt to cover them all. SOme are on the same road number/name, ans some involve many. Bicycle routes, train routes as well. If we try and make an itinerary for each one it would overwhelme the guide. Similarly adding the route information to a travel guide, sets us up for a manual task. It would be easy enough to do something like pick up the OSM data and one of the OSM routing engines, allow you to search a route, and just link the travel guides for the towns along the route. OSM also has lots of informaiton like exit numners, highway services etc. If the information isn't in OSM yet, maybe better to enter it there, than here.. --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 14:22, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|We definitely can do highway pages if they are major, as already done but very good point inas. [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 14:26, 5 December 2008 (EST). |+|
|−|:I'm not in favor of individual highways/interstates getting their own articles unless such highway is iconic (I.e. [[Route 66]]). Back to the main point of discussion, Texugo, I like your template. Ideally for me, it would be floated to the right and be place solely in the get-in section of the article. I'd also want the template to be a little smaller (remove some of the dots) and enlarge the highway icons. -- [[User:Sapphire|Sapphire]] • <small>([[User_talk:Sapphire|Talk]])</small> • 16:31, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::Few more thoughts: The template should '''only''' list the nearest large cities and ''maybe'' the nearest mid-size city. For example, I wouldn't expect I-71 in Cincinnati to list that [[Loveland (Ohio)]] was on the highway, because the city is only 10,000 or so large. The next city should be [[Dayton]] (If I remember correctly), or ''possibly'' - but then again this would be a stretch - [[Middletown (Ohio)]] (which isn't quite mid-sized). -- [[User:Sapphire|Sapphire]] • <small>([[User_talk:Sapphire|Talk]])</small> • 16:36, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:::I disagree. It kind of defeats the point, to my mind, to leave out "small" destinations. Half the point of this proposed template is to point out those less-well-known destinations that one might encounter while traveling between two big ones. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 18:57, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::::I second that, pointing out little towns on the template can help draw attention to them and what they have to offer. Oh, and I-71 goes towards Columbus...not Dayton (I-75 goes north to Dayton). [[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] 22:55, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|: I like it. To prevent the inevitable "which city to list" squabbles, though, I would suggest that the template use the same city names as actual highway signage in the destination. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 22:59, 5 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::It does seem like an interesting idea. I definitely like it better than having highway articles. Also does sound like a lot of work, but a nice template should help. I also see this as more of a "get out" template, but with some tweaking might work in "get in" too – [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 03:45, 6 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:::I also think that not listing the next destination (whatever the size) would defeat the point. Some travellers, like my dad for example, like to stay somewhat outside a big city, where accommodation may be cheaper, or where an early departure won't involve morning traffic jams. Some through travellers may look to stop for lunch in a small town along the way rather than get off the highway and involved in traffic in the bigger city. Some smaller towns have attractions that would be a shame to miss, or one-of-a-kind restaurants which have become favorites of travellers who frequent the area. |+|
|−|:::Of course the appearance of the box itself is up for discussion , and I would welcome other mockups if anyone wants to toy with what I did. The characters that aren't showing up for you, LtPowers, are part of the Japanese character set, and can of course be changed. We can work out the size of the icon and the nature of the separators before making the template, if we can agree that this is a good idea. |+|
|−|:::As for the placement of the box, I would lean toward putting it centered at the bottom simply because the box is a bit wide, even with the smallest font setting as it is, ''and'' because the width of the box will vary depending on the length of the city names. Right justified in the body of the article could really squash the layout if you have several long placenames. I think topic-wise it fits a little better with the ''Get out'' section too, as we tend to mention nearby small towns there a lot more often than in the ''Get in'' section. |+|
|−|:::It will be quite a bit of work, though as Cacahuate said, having a template would definitely help. I do think it will be worth it. |+|
|−|:::[[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 03:59, 6 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::::If we place the template in the Get-out section, then I'd withdraw my suggestion about right alignment, but I still think it would be nice, so that text wrapped around the template. I also withdraw the suggestion about sticking only to big cities, but I definitely would like to see larger icons and fewer dots. -- Sapphire |+|
|−|So, outside the US? What about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route European route network]? In a lot of European countries they are the only route designation, in some countries they are dual labelled with the national highway network, and in some countries, like the [[UK]] they are not used at all. I like the idea, and for a Dane it would make sense to use in Europe, as ''we'' use the E network to navigate, but I know Germans mainly use the German numbering system. And would I be complete wrong thinking that travellers in Europe (and Japan for that matter) mainly use public transportation anyway? making hard to justify the effort here. Also I agree it should be made narrower --[[User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Sertmann|Talk]]</sup></small> 06:15, 6 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|| image1=I-40.png |+|
|−|| directionl1=W |+|
|−|| majorl1=[[Amarillo]] |+|
|−|| minorl1=[[Weatherford]] |+|
|−|| directionr1=E |+|
|−|| majorr1=[[Little Rock]] |+|
|−|| minorr1=[[Shawnee]] |+|
|−|| image2=I-35.png |+|
|−|| directionl2=N |+|
|−|| majorl2=[[Wichita]] |+|
|−|| minorl2=[[Edmond]] |+|
|−|| directionr2=S |+|
|−|| majorr2=[[Dallas]]/[[Fort Worth]] |+|
|−|| minorr2=[[Norman]] |+|
|−|| image3=I-44.png |+|
|−|| directionl3=SW |+|
|−|| majorl3=[[Wichita Falls]] |+|
|−|| minorl3=[[Chickasha]] |+|
|−|| directionr3=NE |+|
|−|| majorr3=[[Tulsa]] |+|
|−|| minorr3=[[Stroud (Oklahoma)|Stroud]] |+|
|−|:Alright, take two. I made the icons slightly bigger and the rest as small as possible. I made up a template which seems to work well enough, though I guess it will have to be like the Babel templates where there are actually a set of templates and you have to indicate how many entries there are. I'm putting it here to the right to see how it looks, though wherever it is aligned, I still think it belongs in the ''Get out'' section. What do you think? |+|
|−|:[[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 07:22, 6 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|You realise this would be difficult. So we got Europe and America. What about Asia, Canada, UAE, Australia, etc.? Canada would be difficult cause it is not just a set type of highways. [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 12:23, 6 December 2008 (EST). |+|
|−|I think this is a ''brilliant'' idea, and much less intensive than a bunch of highway articles, and a template like this makes it easy to apply to virtually any route, such as a rail line. I think this works best at the bottom of the article in the Get out section - it's simple, straight-forward, it fits with the theme of "Get out", and would be less obtrusive there rather than sticking it the Get in section. And yes, it needs to have all the little small destinations, otherwise it would defeat the point. |+|
|−|But there is one thing though - going back to what AHeneen was saying, the region articles have a lot of information on small destinations which can't have articles of their own. So let's say you drove out of the city on the interstate and you're about to pass "Buffalo Bill's Western Amusement Park", which happens to have a really fantastic BBQ joint. Obviously, info like this belongs in the regional article, not the template - the template shouldn't have any specific destination info, just links to the destination article, such as a city or a national park. I'd kinda like to see links to regional articles included in this somehow, but I don't know how you could do it without it looking weird. Perhaps you could put the name of the city where this specific template goes on the top of the template, followed by a link to the regional article (so for instance your Oklahoma City template, it would say on top '''Oklahoma City''' ([[Greater Oklahoma City]]). I dunno, it's just a thought. If we can't get the regional article in somehow, I still support the idea. [[User:PerryPlanet|PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:PerryPlanet|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:48, 6 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:I know exactly the kind of thing you're talking about, and thought about that too. Ideally shouldn't those kind of listings already be in the get out section of the nearest city article anyway? We could, for pure silliness' sake, make the hyphens between the cities link to the region articles, but it might make the template kind of unnecessarily complicated. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 01:55, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::That is a very good point and actually one I was thinking of myself; it might be more practical to just have that info on the Get out section (of course, if we are going to use that argument, that the template should really go into Get out rather than Get in), rather than have a bunch of region articles in the template. Because to be perfectly honest, I don't know how anyone could put regional articles in there without messing up the template. It just looks so beautifully simple now, I'd hate to wreck that. [[User:PerryPlanet|PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:PerryPlanet|Talk]]</sup></small> 12:10, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|Should this be moved to [[Wikitravel talk: Routes Expedition]]? If so, feel free to move it or tell me and I'll get around to it. [[User:AHeneen| AHeneen]] 02:10, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|: If this ''does'' take off, please make the images replaceable in the template, was thinking a bit about this, and something like this would also be perfect for the get-out section of the Russian cities along the [[Trans-Siberian]]. --[[User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Sertmann|Talk]]</sup></small> 02:27, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::I don't quite get you- the images are already replaceable. There is an image field for each line in the template and you just type the image name there. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 02: 35, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
| || |
|−|::: There is nothing to '' get'' :) It was just a shout, in case anyone was contemplating automating the thing with a script or something like that. --[[ User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Sertmann|Talk]]</sup></small> 02:41, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
'', in a that . [] ,
| || |
|−|One quick question about the template, which may be too much detail to worry about now but. .. currently we have it so that it displays the nearest destination of any size and the nearest large city, which I think is great. But what should it display if the next locale is the terminus? Should the space where the next large city goes say ''Terminus''? [[User: PerryPlanet| PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[User_talk: PerryPlanet|Talk]]</sup></small> 12 :29, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
, . and the I think is . it if [[User:|]] :12, December 2008 (EST)
| || |
am wondering if we could get Canadian symbols? There is a bunch-some are on Wikipedia[ logo] but we cannot use. Just wondering. [ [User: Edmontonenthusiast| <font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee] '''</font>] ] <sup><small>[[User talk: Edmontonenthusiast| <font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]] </small></sup> 12: 34, 7 December 2008 (EST) . |+|
I are [[:|]][[User:|]] :, December 2008 (EST)
| || |
It could say (terminus) or it could just be left blank I think. As for symbols, I wouldn't worry about it. A lot of the ones in use on Wikipedia have been released into the public domain, which is where I got the three I used for an example, and even if there are none, that kind of icon is very very simple to create in Inkscape. [[User: Texugo| Texugo]] 13: 38, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
: I the . [[User:|]] :, 17 December 2008 (EST)
|−|::The Interstate highway shields are in the public domain (as creations of the U.S. federal government). I'm not sure of the status of the Canadian 400-series highway shields; Commons thinks they're in the public domain, and I'm inclined to believe them. As for formats, I would like to see the "[[:wikiPedia:control city|control cities]]" bolded. In the case of a terminus, just leave the space blank, or write '''END'''. If a control city is the next destination, then we can either have just that city or have the next two control cities. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 17 :30, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:::Sounds good. I'd say for the last point, have the next two control cities if the next destination is a control city. [[User:PerryPlanet|PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:PerryPlanet|Talk]]</sup></small> 19:16, 7 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::::Ah, my original html mock up had the next major city in bold, but when I made the template I forgot to do it. I fixed it now, although depending on your browser's current text size settings it may not show up that way. I agree that if the next city is a big one the following should also be, just for consistency's sake. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 00:46, 8 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:::::Looking good. You might need to add a point-size parameter (you can default it to 16px) to accommodate 3-digit interstates (there are a few that are major enough to include) and highway shields from other countries. Also, it may be possible to set up a helper-template that takes care of the coding for each row, then just include that template x number of times inside the box. That might make the coding cleaner (or not; I'd have to test it out). [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 09:58, 8 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::::::Feel free to diddle with the template. I'm not all that advanced making those things. Maybe you can copy the current template to [[Template:Routebox-3/test]] to toy with it and show me what you mean here. |+|
|−|::::::Also if there are no objections, I'd like to choose a region for which to implement a pilot of this system so we can all play around with it and see how it works. Anyone have a problem with a test run? |+|
|−|::::::[[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 10:37, 8 December 2008 (EST) |+|
| || |
|−|:::::::Nope, I think you should, it will help us to see quicker if this is going to work & be useful... looks promising though! – [[User: Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]] <sup><small>[[ User talk: Cacahuate| <font color="blue">talk</font>]] </small></sup> 00: 07, 9 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::::::::OK. I will get on that probably tomorrow. Any suggestions for a good place to start. Preferably a US area which has a lot of national highway intersections at different spots so we can try out non- linear navigation better. I was thinking maybe Pennsylvania. Any other suggestion? [[User:Texugo| Texugo]] 08: 00, 9 December 2008 ( EST) |+|
I think to .. .[[User:]][[:|]]:, that for . of so we non-. . [[User:Texugo|]] :, ()
| || |
|−|Good to see real-life examples in Wikitravel articles! In general I like it, but the awkwardness of the Pennsylvania articles (seems like the coverage there is rather poor, with few articles) somewhat hinders it. But that's an issue with the Pennsylvania articles, not the freeway templates. I do have a couple of things to say about the templates though... |+|
to in with the . they very of . I that '''' , [[User:|]] :, ()
|−|*I think they would work better being centered at the very bottom of the page, right above the article status templates. In a large Get out section, like Pittsburgh, they just seem to get lost in the text. |+|
|−|*There's one particular case which seems a tad awkward, and that is in the [[Harrisburg]] template where it shows the next destination on I -76 west being [[Youngstown]], Ohio. Again, this kind of goes back to the issue of Pennsylvania coverage, but really. I-76 passes pretty close to Pittsburgh, without going through the actual town (then again, so does I-79). Close enough that I feel it might warrant being the next destination after Harrisburg. But this begs the broader question - what do you do when your roadway passes '' near'' a destination, rather than ''through'' it? [[User: PerryPlanet|PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:PerryPlanet| Talk]] </sup></small> 12: 32, 10 December 2008 ( EST) |+|
| || |
|−|:::I noticed that about the Pennsylvania articles and abandoned that as a test in favor of an area that I know has at least an article for many smaller towns. I completed I-40 from where it enters Texas on the west to OKC, from there on I-35 down to Dallas, and tomorrow I'll do a little more, connecting it back up to Amarillo and over to Lubbock. That should be a good enough area to play with for the time being I think. Have a run through what I' ve got so far and let me know what you think. Note the special case at [[Denton]] where 35 splits into two. I'm going to switch it over to the center for the moment because having it right aligned makes a weird layout when the only thing in the Get out section is an outline notification or some such box. I do think it will be better to put it under the text where PerryPlanet suggests, but I'll have to go back tomorrow and move the ones I've done because it's far past bedtime. [[User:Texugo| Texugo]] 13: 18, 10 December 2008 ( EST) |+|
::I the article on the and to . the a '. the over the the the in . do itsuggests, to and .[[User:Texugo|]] :, ()
| || |
:For highways passing near cities rather than through them, it's going to have to be a judgment call. If the road signs on the highway point out the city as a destination (e.g., xxx miles to Pittsburgh signs on I-76), then it certainly should be included in the sequence. (Note that Pittsburgh ' 'is'' an official control city for I-76 and the PA Turnpike and so should be included.) If not, then we'll have to make a call. Certainly anything that passes through suburbs of a major city (i.e., I-90 passing south of [[ Rochester (New York)| Rochester]] probably should mention that city, but then we have to ask what counts as a suburb... [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 15: 27, 10 December 2008 ( EST) |+|
:::to the . '[[|]], to a . [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] :, ()
| || |
:Good idea, LtPowers. That sounds like the best way to handle that situation. Anyway, I just went through the Texas/Oklahoma deal and I really like what I see. I like how you handled Denton, Texugo . Looks nice. Overall, it just looks fantastic and I can' t wait to help this expand across the country. It's just so convenient to have there, to be able to hop from town to town without thinking about it. And my worries about excluding material that would be in regional articles largely vanished when I saw that kind of info in the Get out sections, like we were talking about. It's so nice when things go the way you want them to. .. [[User: PerryPlanet| PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[ User_talk: PerryPlanet| Talk]] </sup></small> 15: 42, 10 December 2008 ( EST) |+|
:::: I. Texugo I', that I the to . [[User:|]] [[:|]]15:, ()
| || |
: I took a look at it and really like it. It's very handy for quickly seeing what cities/towns lie along a highway, what you can do there, etc. I 'd like to roll it out in Canadian articles as well but a couple of things come to mind. One thing is western Canada doesn't have an Interstate equivalent network of expressways. Would there be any objection to using old-fashioned two lane highways that are key roads in moving people and goods around (e. g., the Trans-Canada highway)? A second thing is what to do when the Interstate hits an international border. For example, the I -5 hits the Canadian border, becomes Hwy 99 and continues on to Vancouver, Whistler and points north. I'd prefer to see the routebox continue on rather than stopping at a border. So, in the I- 5/BC 99 example, the I- 5 routebox heading north from Seattle would show Vancouver, BC as the next major destination and vice-versa for Hwy 99 heading south from Vancouver. [[User: Shaund| Shaund]] 19: 15, 10 December 2008 ( EST) |+|
::::: for , I it be and . the , I .--[[User:|]] :, ()
|−|:::::::Ditto. [[User:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 12:38, 14 December 2008 (EST). |+|
| || |
|−|==Update on Routebox experiment== |+|
put in a few hours to flesh this out for better examination. Routebox navigation is more or less complete for the [[Panhandle (Texas)|Texas Panhandle]] and [[Great Plains Country|Oklahoma Great Plains]] regions, plus areas from Oklahoma City down to [[Dallas]]-[[Fort Worth]], and everything on and north of I-20 as far west as [[Odessa (Texas)|Odessa]]. Routes completed include all US interstates and US Routes which pass through the area as well as a handful of Texas routes which provide access to article destinations otherwise left out of the network. I was at first a little leery of putting in the full set of US routes and supplemental state routes, but the result is that about 65% of the destination still have only one or two routes listed, and only a very few have more than 3, with [[ Dallas]] having the most at 7 . |+|
to . is
moreorless the to the to .[] 7
| || |
|−|In the process of implementing all this, I had some thoughts about guidelines we should implement if this is going to be consistent, comprehensive, and useful. Here are my ideas: |+|
the of this
we should if this to
be , , and .:
| || |
Care must be taken when laying a new route not to skip any places for which we have an article. Using Google Maps and running placenames in our search seems to work. |+|
*'''' the the . , and the that [], and in [] the , should be . I in [[-]]of we have a for that should be ' [] , and the highway . -[[|]] []
|−|*When different types of routes are used, they should be listed in the following order: |+|
for the . [[()
|−|:*High speed train lines |+|
]] []and . [] [[|]], (
|−|:*Regular train lines |+|
, me. If no , I'and . [[User:|]] :, 13 ()
|−|:*Interstate highways in numerical order |+|
|−|:*National highways in numerical order |+|
|−|:*Subnational highways in numerical order |+|
|−|*Both cardinal and ordinal directions should be used and should be chosen based on the direction the route '' leaves'' the destination, not on the general direction of the route as a whole. Preference for left-side placement should be given to N, NW, W, and SW. |+|
|−|* When a highway changes names (as at a border or, for example, where US-75 becomes I-45 in [[Dallas]]) a note should be inserted saying "Becomes ___" along with an extra hyphen and space on the appropriate side, so that two further destinations can still be listed. See the examples of I-75 in the [[ Richardson]] article, and Texas-152 in [[ Wheeler]] . |+|
|−|* When a highway merges with another going in the same direction, a note should be inserted. See westbound I -30 in [[ Fort Worth]] and southbound Texas- 70 in [[Sweetwater]] . |+|
|−|* When a highway ends at or crosses another highway of equal or higher level at a place for which we have no article, a mention should be inserted. See US-281 north from [[Anadarko]]. |+|
|−|* If a major highway junction occurs at a small town for which we have an article, that town should be treated as a control city for less important routes, so anyone walking through the route won' t miss a major junction. [[ Childress]] is a good example, as several US routes converge there and US-287 is as big and important to the area as any Interstate, while 62 and 83 are not. |+|
|−|* When a highway enters a national park, an abbreviated version of the park name maybe used for a destination. See southbound US- 385 from [[ Odessa (Texas)| Odessa]] for an example. |+|
|−|* We should never have links to non-existant articles ''unless'' a highway terminates in a reasonable sized city for which we might create an article. See how I-175 terminates in Jacksonville in the [[ Dallas]] artilcle. |+|
|−|* Some routes have very long stretches of several hundred miles in which there is no major control city. In these cases every city for which we have an article should be used. |+|
|−|* Rest stops can be inserted as text in addition to the two cities in a given direction. See [[ Vernon ( Texas) |Vernon]] and [[ Wichita Falls]] for an example. If might be possible to develop a couple of icons to show rest stops and picnic areas to save horizontal text space. |+|
|−|* Subnational routes such as state highways should only be used if they provide access to article destinations which are otherwise off the network (See Texas 152 through [[ Borger]] , Texas 70 through [[ Turkey (Texas)| Turkey]], or for cases where two adjecent cities are otherwise unconnected ( See [[Pampa]] and [[Perryton]] connected by Texas-70. |+|
|−|I'm going to hold off adding any more areas to the project until I get some more comments. Please explore the areas I've done with the above proposed guidelines in mind, and give me your comments. If after the next round of comments there are no major objections, I' d like to move this to a separate expedition page and starting rolling it out in other areas. I'm personally really really happy with the way this is working so far. |+|
Texugo| Texugo]] 06: 22, 13 December 2008 ( EST) |+|
| || |
|−|:I think this looks fantastic - virtually no objections here, and I can't wait to start rolling this out in New Mexico and expanding from there. I am wondering though whether we really need to include state roads at all. Unless the stated purpose of this is to cover every single destination with a route box, do we really need to go into that much detail? At what point should Wikitravel stop and say that this is a job for a road map, not a travel guide? |+|
:::Sorry, thought was . and of it. [[User:Texugo|]] :, 14 ()
|−|:Also, if I could add another condition to the list you came up with - What do you do if there's a major intersection but no town? This is the case with the intersection of I-15 and I-70 in Central Utah - I-70 dead ends with I-15 several miles from the nearest town, Beaver (which doesn't have an article, though that can be fixed). My idea is to have, in the last destination on I-70 before it dead ends into I-15, write "I-15" as the next destination, then write "Beaver" as the control city, with a note in parenthesis that its 10 miles south on I-15. And then in the Beaver article to have I-70 in there, with the note that its terminus is 10 miles north on I-15. That way you can still follow the route without interruption. |+|
|−|:On a separate note about train lines - now don't get me wrong, I love traveling by train and take Amtrak when I travel long distances, but how much sense does it make to put train lines into this? Trains make a brief stop in a town/city, then take off again. With road travel, you can pull off and explore such-and-such place, in which case this route box is very helpful. But you can't do that on a train unless you're willing to spend the night and wait for the next train. I really, really don't have any objection to putting train routes in here, but I do wonder if train info should just be left to the "Get in by train" section. [[User:PerryPlanet|PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:PerryPlanet|Talk]]</sup></small> 13:18, 13 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::Your question about intersections where there is no article was answered above, but I didn't word it properly. See US-281 north from [[Anadarko]]. |+|
|−|::About state roads I would say that most of them should not end up being used, hence the suggested restrictions above, ''but'' I would really hate to see a prohibition on using them because state roads are sometimes the most scenic routes, and also using them can flesh out the full picture of what destinations are nearby. It also seem ridiculous to me to have two navigable articles which in reality are adjacent, but without using states routes take many steps to reach. Here is the example which led me to use state routes: [[Pampa]], [[Texas]] is adjacent to both [[Perryton]] and [[Wheeler]] via direct state routes, but to navigate between them without following state routes, you have to make a huge detour: [[Pampa]] - [[Panhandle (Texas, city)|Panhandle]] - [[Amarillo]] - [[Conway]] - [[Groom]] - [[McLean]] - [[Shamrock]] - [[Wheeler]] - [[Canadian]] - [[Perryton]]. |+|
|−|::As for trains, I wasn't thinking so much about the US, but rather places where rail travel is really vital and more regular. In Japan most tourists get a JR pass and they ''can'' hop on and off, hitting several destinations in a day if they want. I am dying to see this implemented for JR and Shinkansen lines here, or for the Trans-Siberian railway, or for the European rail network. |+|
|−|::[[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 02:34, 14 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:::Sounds good on both counts. I guess my only question now is when I can try putting those routes boxes in. :) [[User:PerryPlanet|PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:PerryPlanet|Talk]]</sup></small> 02:45, 14 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::::Sorry I was amending my last comments above when you posted. Don't know if you read everything. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 02:54, 14 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:: I just thought I'd bring up a couple of points before we get started implementing this. Sertman started doing boxes along [[Interstate 4]] and consecutive towns would have directions: W-E, W-N, S-N, N-S. I'm certainly not criticizing him, I'm sure it was just a little oversight. ..but it lead to the question of creating a couple of standards: Could we please use the direction that the route is ''signed''. This makes things consistent and while cardinal directions might be evident if you have a compass, are keen to where you're heading, or it is dusk/dawn...that way a traveller in the middle of the night doesn't have to figure out which direction is which before proceeding on his/her way. [[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] 05:24, 14 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:::That is the other option, but what do we do when the highway signage doesn't say?-- In the US, I think only interstate highways even have a signed direction. [[User:Texugo|Texugo]] 05:40, 14 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::::Not sure about that. I'd like to bring up another point. I think when: ''"When a highway ends at or crosses another highway of equal or higher level at a place for which we have no article, a mention should be inserted. See US-281 north from [[Anadarko]]."'' occurs, the dash is confusing. Is I-40 or I-70 at Great Bend? I think a sign should be used instead of the "I-40" and eliminate the dash or use "at" to eliminate confusion. I think that something about being a National Park should be noted...so "Big Bend NP" or "Big Bend Nat. Park" rather than "Big Bend". Also, when a highway ends ''near'' a major city, would it be ok to list the city and put "(via [image])"? For example, the Palmer Highway (Alaska 2) is 323 miles long and carries traffic between Anchorage (pop 280,000) and Fairbanks(pop 35,000), but technically ends 35mi north of Anchorage at AK-1 near Palmer(pop 4500). Is it ok to put in the [[Fairbanks]] and [[Denali National Park]] articles that Anchorage is the next major city to the South with "[[Anchorage]](via [[Image:Alaska 1 shield.png|20px]])"?[[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] 06:36, 14 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|:::::The point is that neither I-40 nor I-70 is at Great Bend-- if they were, they would not be mentioned. I suggest only mentioning highways in the routebox when there is an intersection at a place where there is no article. Otherwise when you reach a city with more than one junction it will really clutter things up. If there is an article where the junction occurs, that is plenty, as they will see the junctions when they get to that page. |+|
|−|:::::I would like to be able to use images as you said but I have one concern, which I noticed when you implemented it on the Dalton Highway-- when there is only one route it looks really confusing because the one picture is supposed to be the center, but the second image makes it no longer very obvious what the center of the box is or which highway the box is for. I realize you sized the images a little differently, but I still think it loses the ready focus having only one image gives it. If we are to do as you suggest, I think we need to find a better way to signify what the center of the box is. |+|
|−|:::::I wouldn't mind appending "NP" to national parks but I don't think it's really necessary. |+|
|−|:::::[[User:Texugo| Texugo]] 07:34, 14 December 2008 (EST) |+|
|−|::::::Going back to where routes end ''quite close'' to a city: Interstate 75 ends about 8-10miles NW of downtown Miami, but (unlike AK-3 mentioned earlier) there is no one major route leading it directly to Miami. The town it ends at is [[Hialeah]] (which has its own article). On all cities along I-75 south of Tampa, I put Miami as the next major city, before realizing this mistake. Should we have a policy where, if a route ends extremely close to a city (such as in a suburb), we can use the city as a major city along the route? Other such instances that I have quickly found in the South include I-20 5 miles from Florence,SC & I-55 17 miles from downtown NOLA. Any thoughts?[[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] 12: 28, 14 December 2008 ( EST) |+|
Latest revision as of 18:49, 29 September 2011
need help to simplify something
Swept in from the pub:
I started playing around with the "get out" sections of the two regions near where I live, the Skylands region of New Jersey and the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. And I started talking about Interstate 80, which goes from just outside of New York City to San Francisce, passing through Pittsburgh, Chicago, Des Moines, Cheyenne, Salt Lake City and a ton of other places. I'm not sure of any other Interstate that goes all the way from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific like it does. So on these regional pages, I just started posting links to these cities, and it got quite cumbersome and ugly. If there were an itinerary page for Route 80, or something, it might help. There is some interesting discussion about a "Highway and Interstate travel guide" here and apparently I'm not sure if it's good or not. Most interstates go to two or three cities or regions at the most, but places like Route 80 (that's what we call it) and I-95, which goes up and down the east coast of the USA, are whole projects. Are my eyes bigger than my keyboard fingers? Thank a lot. I'm pretty new to this. It's fun. My brother has been all over the world, and I've been to a few overseas places. I just saw that there was almost nothing around here where I live, so I thought I would fill it in with something. Somebody already said "nice job" to me once, so I guess I'll keep going. Maybe I'll improve my home economy a little bit. Look forward to hearing from youKire1975 02:09, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not sure "San Francisco" is a good choice for a "get out" destination from New Jersey. The fact that they're connected by a single Interstate (as are Boston and Seattle, I should point out) is an interesting trivium, but not really useful to the average traveler. Now, an article on I-80 would be fine, in my opinion, but people who are headed to New Jersey aren't generally going to go visit San Francisco as their next destination. A few might, but not enough to bother mentioning it in the "Get out" section. What would go there (for the Skylands article, at least) would be things like New York (city), Poconos, Philadelphia and maybe as far as Washington DC. You could also mention New England as it's not far. LtPowers 10:59, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
- Get out sections are for nearby attractions or cities that people are likely to visit, generally within a couple hours drive or less; I definitely wouldn't list everything city that the highways leading out of a city head to. I personally can't really see the usefulness of an I-80 article... we generally don't have articles on highways or freeways, unless they're exceptional like Route 66. I think for the most part we should be focused on what the traveler would be focused on: the destinations. I-80 simply connects those destinations, and is best talked about in the city articles. I think it could be fun though to mention in San Francisco#Get out that I-80 stretches all the way to NYC. But I don't know about each and every town along the route – cacahuate talk 23:24, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
- I think the hypothetical I-80 article would be part of a Travel Topic series on the U.S. Interstate highway system, per this discussion. LtPowers 11:56, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
Excuse the extremely long prose here but it's greatly needed...
Before we get into some serious discussion on the scope of this expedition, let me (being the one who brought this subject up in the pub) state my original intentions (just so you understand and to clear misconceptions). Wikitravel is a world-wide travel guide...built in collaboration by Wikitravellers from around the globe. When browsing the requests for articles page I noticed a desire for a "Highways and Interstates travel guide". As I am an American, I thought of how many tens of millions of Americans take road trips each year. Since this is a travel guide, I thought that maybe guides to interstates and a few other major highways would be helpful and within the scope of what Wikitravel is...a travel guide. When people go on long road trips, they will be going through numerous regions and to me, having to dig through numerous regions just to find something interesting or fun to do is a long and tedious task. Furthermore, what may be listed in an article for a major city could be on the opposite side of town from where the interstate passes through and at the same time something fun and/or interesting might be right off of the interstate but buried deep within a city article. To me the idea of creating articles for interstates was mostly about convenience...both for the someone just looking for an hour break on a trip...or someone looking to take a leisurely trip. If you take a look at what I did with Interstate 4(which I could still add much more to), you'd understand how much it differs from having to delve through numerous region and city articles. Someone who printed the guide and is on the road could go "look the next exit is the world's largest McDonald's...let's eat" whereas that is buried deep in the Orlando article and then they'd have to figure out where in the city it is...see what I mean by convenience? I did not intend that this become an encyclopedic "the next exit is in 14.2 miles and is blah blah"...no, I only want to list major exits of ones with attractions! The problem comes with fairness...Wikitravel is a world-wide travel guide. Now we need to make articles for highways in other countries...fine. The purpose, however, was to provide a guide to major highways that are oft-traveled by people on road trips (like the US Interstate system). Some have the misconception that we need to create a guide for every highway in every country...NO! Unless there's something special, we should stick to places with a "car culture" and where road trips are frequent and these articles would be of great use. Is this plan ambitious...absolutely! However, weren't the founders of Wikitravel ambitious to think that articles for thousands of destinations world-wide could ever get to the point of being useful? This is a project...err, expedition...which will take some time (maybe a few years), but once completed it will be a great asset for Wikitravel. If you still don't feel this belongs here, maybe someone could guide me through the process of creating a wiki website and I'll start Wikiroute for my ambitions. I just wanted to make my intentions clear before we start discussing things. I'm no authoritative figure around here (and not really trying to be) but I felt compelled to mention this and put it at the top of the talk page since I brought up the idea and it seems like there's zero direction to this new expedition. I hope you now have a better idea of this. We've talked a lot already in the pub, so please only reply if it's notable (we don't need 50 replies to this too)...otherwise skip to the next header AHeneen 04:50, 7 December 2008 (EST)
I have many thoughts on this issue, and am not necessarily sold on either proposal. But could we please move our discussions out of the pub and to a "Wikitravel talk:Routes Expedition" page. I'd rather create new sections to discuss specific issues, since these two discussions are covering many points, and are a bit unwieldy. --Peter Talk 16:13, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- plunge forward? :)--Stefan (sertmann) Talk 16:22, 6 December 2008 (EST)
- Expedition begun! AHeneen 02:02, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- I do not agree with the stated goals of the Routes Expedition, and my proposal does not exactly jive with what is written there. It makes it sound as if the idea to create articles for every highway already has community approval. I wouldn't mind this discussion being moved somewhere, but if we move it there I'd like to see the main expedition page totally re-written. Actually I'd like to see it re-written whether this discussion goes there or not. Texugo 02:09, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Yes, I think we should work on discussions at Wikitravel talk:Routes Expedition before we actually write the expedition page. --Peter Talk 02:16, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Ok, well I was working on things while you two were thinking about this article. I left some things that aren't really controversial on the main page. Heres what I had in mind for a few of the sections:
The goal of this expedition is to create reliable guides pertaining to major highways of regions where there are high numbers of travellers by road. To achieve this goal, we must:
- Create a page listing all major highways of nations where there are high numbers of travelers by road. To begin with, this probably should include: the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
- Create usable articles for all major highways of these regions.
- Create guides which focus on amusement, sights, and attractions within a reasonable distance of the highway.(of course, this is subjective by geography)
- We are not aiming to create stubs to simply have an article on each highway. Stubs will be deleted.
- Guides will not be a replacement for articles concerning the cities, governmental districts, or regions through which the highway passes.
- We are not aiming to create articles with so little information as to be impractical for the user.
- We are aiming neither to be encyclopedic with regard to details about the highway nor list every single exit on the highway.
- The biggest should be to attract more members, as it is usually local knowledge that is most helpful in doing this.
- Decide on appropriate templates for these articles. (see guidelines below)
- As articles are created, route maps and logos will need to be created.
- Create articles.
AHeneen 02:50, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Discussion on creation of route pages
this was swept in from the pub on December 7, 2008 by AHeneen. Originally under the title "US Interstates".
I noticed a few days ago "highways and interstates" in the Requests for articles page. Being something I am interested in, I went ahead and started an article for Interstate 4. The reason I am in the Traveller's Pub is to ask what an appropriate template would be. Itinerary seems natural, but would it be fine to leave out the "get in" and "drink" sections altogether? They don't seem to be practical. There's only two other interstate articles on WT: Interstate 10 and Interstate 95(vfd). I'm just looking for a little feedback on how to structure the articles before more are created...that's all. Thanks! AHeneen 00:53, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- To me an itinerary is a trip you would choose to make, and then find out what there is to see on that trip. I may choose to drive Route 66, and then want to know what there is to see. I may choose to travel the Trans-Siberian Railway, and I want to know what there is on the way. An itinerary should naturally fit into the sentence "On my last travels, I travelled ...", and not sound odd. Anything else is just a road. I'm not saying roads shouldn't be in Wikitravel. Maybe they should, people travel on roads too, and maybe Wikitravel should provide information for them. But, if we do, we should think of the information people want on a road, and develop a template for that, and not shoehorn it in to something else --Inas 01:03, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- Per Wikitravel:What is an article?, an article about a road would be inappropriate, but an article that is either a region or itinerary article named after the road is fine. Route 66 is a great article, but it's about traveling on Route 66, not about the road itself. Your Dalton Highway article is similar - it's a guide to traveling on the Dalton. Trouble occurs when someone tries to start an article for every single highway and interstate - those aren't valid article subjects except as itineraries, and in the past consensus has been that an itinerary "stub" is not valuable and usually get deleted unless it's a famous itinerary like the Inca Trail. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:54, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Well, if you read the Requests for articles page, there was a bit of support for such articles. Eventually, this wouldn't just be a guide about one interstate, we'd have numerous articles made about interstates. The I-4 article is certainly not complete. What I had in mind was creating an article like an itinerary, but a little different. Listed in the article would be things to see and do, as well as listing major interchanges which (as more interstates became articles) people could click and find things to do along that interstate. My rationale behind this is that lots of users on Wikitravel are Americans and most Americans go on road trips every once in a while. Sure one can use the state articles and then browse the regions or cities through which the interstate passes, but I was thinking that interstate articles would make the information more concise for users. Say I am heading from Atlanta to Chicago...rather than click and browse regions of Georgia, Tenessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois, I could use the Interstate 75 article to see what's between Atlanta and Chattanooga, then click on the link to the Interstate 24 article to see what's between Chattanooga and Nashville, then click on the Interstate 65 article to see what there is to do between Nashville and Chigago. To Inas...these would not be an itinerary that you would want to do (as in being particularly interesting), but once there are a sufficient number of interstate articles, you could create your own itinerary...like I said, lots of Americans go on road trips each year, and such guides would provide a means of figuring out what to do on them. I simply started w/I-4 because that's what I'm familiar with. With regards to Wikitravel:What is an article?, these articles would be like an itinerary...but need to be a little different. The "get in" and "drink" don't seem like practical sections and I was wondering what should be added before setting a precedent for other articles. Since this is a first in a series of articles on interstates, I was trying to decide on an appropriate template and dropped a few lines here in the Traveler's pub to get some feedback (because I know this is a good place to get some). Do you understand now? AHeneen 02:31, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- I'm willing to let the article develop and see how it turns out, but I'm not at all a fan of the idea because I really can't think of any useful kinds of information which don't already have a rightful place in either the city or region articles. I think if we have pages for highways, they might ought to be reference pages, containing nothing but a list of links to the pages of everything along a given highway, from terminus to terminus. (The Wikitravel community usually frowns on list pages a bit though.) Texugo 05:56, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- Service areas on toll roads would be one useful piece of information that does not belong in a city or region article. LtPowers 11:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- I understand the idea, but I guess I'm not clear on how articles on interstates wouldn't be an itinerary. We definitely don't want a situation where information is being duplicated (and I don't think you're proposing that) so you could (for example) have an article for Interstate 5 that points out interesting sites along the way, but links to the appropriate city or region article for more detailed information. There isn't really a template defined for itineraries since they're all different, but what distinguishes them is that they're about a linear journey instead of a specific destination - it sounds like that encapsulates what you're envisioning, with the caveat that links to other interstates would allow users to follow different branches of the journey. Additionally, I think it's important that we not encourage people to create stub article about every single road that's out there - if someone wants to take the time to create detailed articles that's fine, but Wikitravel:What is an article? is clear that a proliferation of stubs for roads would be subject to deletion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)
As a travel site, it is understandable that users will be looking for information on specific roads and/or highways. See our helpful user who thought Interstate 95 should have an article, even if just a stub. While the convention here has been to focus on destinations rather than focusing on the methods one takes to get around, highway information seems to be an area where we have a gap between what users are looking for and what we have available for them. It's all well and good to explain how that you can get to Peoria (Illinois) by taking I-74, but it seems we have users who work the other way around -- "where can I go if I'm traveling on I-74"? Minimally, I think every major (i.e., national-level expressway) highway should at least have a bare list of destinations along the route -- sort of a disambiguation page, or like what we've done for Great Lakes. LtPowers 11:34, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- It is undeniable that users will look for all sorts of information in any travel guide, and the onus is on the guide to have a reasonable organizational structure that makes that information available and easy to use. Road-based travel guides are helpful, as shown by the popularity of The Milepost in Alaska, the various road atlas guides out there, etc. However, it's not clear that a guide can offer both a road-based organizational structure AND a destination-based organizational structure, so Evan, Maj, and many of the original contributors set this site up to use the latter and discourage the former EXCEPT as itineraries. This is just my opinion, but while I think it's fine to create articles like Dalton Highway and Route 66, I think creating stubs for major roads is a Wikitravel:Slippery slope that would lead to a confusing dichotomy in how Wikitravel is organized so I'm wary of the idea. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:51, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- Well I wouldn't want to see large-scale construction of stubs just for the sake of having them. But I think a wiki can have multiple ways of seeing travel running in parallel and in support of each other. LtPowers 11:57, 5 December 2008 (EST)
So those who think that route articles are a bad idea in general, what do you think users who search for Interstate 84 (for example) should see? Should they see a redlink with some search results? Or a page that will at least give them a list of options for destinations? LtPowers 18:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
I'd like to see an experimental article for an Interstate that does list all the cities and places it goes through just to see how well it works out. Here's my problems with just listing cities:
- There are Hotels way outside of cities that are not currently handled properly. For example, some of the hotels along I-5 in California are officially listed in Bakersfield which is 20 miles away.
- Interstates often purposely avoid cities. So do we list a city that is five miles off-course?
- Interstates are often insanely boring. "Stuff along the Interstate to do" is not currently well-handled anywhere in Wikitravel. But boy does interstate travel need a list like this.
- We don't need to duplicate existing city articles within the Interstate article. Just point to the city article.
So I'd like to see us plunge forward with one or two non-itinerary articles just to see how well or badly it works out. For example, I'd like to see one for I-5 in California. -- Colin 21:49, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- Hi, Colin. I moved your comment up here, hope you don't mind. =) LtPowers 22:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- I think Colin understands my rationale. Anyways, the Interstate 4 guide is largely set up as I'd like it (still a bit more can be added). There is a list of exits and what is off them: towns, attractions. There is a list of "see & do" set up as a kind of "what fun things there are to do along the highway" section and an "eat" section with noteworthy places/areas to eat (because there are signs along the highway that list food at each exit). Anyways, any feedback? What could be changed? AHeneen 23:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
- I'm very leery of this proposal, and tend to think that this would be unnecessary for most routes. A page dedicated to I-95, for example, would strike me as both unworkable and unnecessary, since there are way too many interesting things to see along it, and people aren't using it to sightsee anyway. Roads like these seem to me purely functional. The Dalton Highway is a pretty good example of a road that lends itself well to a travel itinerary. So would the West Virginia Coal Heritage Trail . I-80 on the other hand, seems like it would be a pretty pointless article. (Route 66 actually isn't an exception—it's not a highway, it's a popular travel itinerary.) So, I remain unconvinced that we should set out to have such articles for the US highway system.
- While there are service stations and hotels/motels right on the roads, which are not covered in our destination guides, I'm not sure there is any compelling reason to cover them at all. Service stations as well as lodgings are regularly spaced and do not differ much from each other. While I suppose we could explain that one has a McDonalds, but hold out for the next, which has a Wendys, this seems like we are doing too much. If someone is wondering whether to stop now or wait for the next station, they probably aren't going to refer to Wikitravel, because it's just not that important. Quality of lodgings along the road can vary, but I don't think we're the site to try and help travelers plan that. We're not a review site—other sites do a fine job of this, and I see no reason for mission creep.
- So in short, I'm very much not sold, worried about content duplication, distraction from our goals. But I'm also happy to experiment. Lets just keep the work on this idea limited to our experimental article Interstate 4 for the time being. I'll try and add some thoughts to that article's discussion page. --Peter Talk 18:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- In such a case, we could create them like we do for huge cities. List the most important things on the main page for the highway, and create a "segment article" like districts are in huge cities. For example: Interstate 95 article lists major attractions, cities, and junctions. We could also have links for: "Interstate 95 from Maine through Deleware", "Interstate 95 from Deleware through Virginia", & "Interstate 95 from North Carolina through Florida".
- We do not need to explain restaurants in the same way that city articles do not list every restaurant in the city. See: Interstate 4. With regards to the US, at least, Interstates have signs noting gas, sleep, and food at every exit...so there would be no need to list such in the article. On the other hand, if there's an interesting or notable restaurant it can be listed.
- Well, I'm glad you're willing to let this continue. I'll need to focus on getting the I-4 article together, in a better format, and more and will gladly appreciate some criticism/suggestions. AHeneen 18:45, 7 December 2008 (EST)
- Peter, can I reiterate my question from above: What, exactly, do you feel a user should see when she searches for (say) "Interstate 95" in Wikitravel? LtPowers 19:21, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Update of Routebox experiment
A policy page has been created, so this discussion has been moved here.
Texugo 06:24, 15 December 2008 (EST)
I'm of the opinion that, while we don't want to duplicate information, indexing it in multiple ways is a good thing. We've got wikilinks, breadcrumb navigation based on the article hierarchy, and itineraries that cover some routes, plus you can search either on the wiki or using an outside search engine. We could argue about how important having another mechanism is, or just figure it cannot do any harm, so just plunge forward and build it. I'd say the latter is the correct course. Glad someone's doing it, though it's mostly outside my range of interests.
I find myself wondering how it might apply, if at all, in areas where driving is not an important option. For one example, see Driving_in_China#Dangers for why not and High-speed_rail_in_China for the best alternative. I think the Trans-Siberian Railway is more the main route than any highway. et cetera. Of course this is not an urgent question; we can go ahead and build it for US highways and, if that works well, worry about extending it later. Pashley 11:12, 16 December 2008 (EST)
- Just because you didn't refer to either the routebox navigation system or to making articles for individual highways, I wonder which you are referring to, as the discussion for the routebox navigation system has recently moved here. Could you clarify a bit? Texugo 11:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
- I meant the routeboxes. Pashley 10:00, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Not real itineraries (i.e. no one says "I think I'll confine my trip to I-15") and not routes of special interest (i.e. Route 66, etc.). A few highway articles still exist as a holdover from User:AHeneen's push to allow it via the largely defunct Routes expedition. Most of the purposes for starting that ended up being taken over by the Routebox navigation, and consensus has never established that we want articles for any and every highway-- the creation of that Routes expedition page was rather premature. Its continued existence promotes further creation of such articles, so I think it's time we deleted it or marked it as defunct as well, and/or re-opened discussion about what to do with the other existing non-touristic highway articles. At this point we still do not, by default, allow this kind of article to be created. texugo 00:56, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
- I strongly object to lumping the expedition page in with the highway pages. Very different arguments apply as they are very different types of pages. I feel strongly that legitimate expedition pages should never be deleted, only archived. LtPowers 09:28, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
- I lumped them together because in this case the expedition page was clearly the justification for creating the highway article pages (the same user signed his name on the expedition page and then proceeded to create highway articles). However the creation of this expedition in the first place was never really sanctioned by consensus-- it was a plunge forward in a direction that we ultimately decided we didn't want to go. In the excitement over the new routebox navigation, this aborted expedition slipped through the cracks, so currently its page is still sitting there encouraging the creation of pages which, in practice, are routinely vfd'd and deleted. If we do "archive it", as User:LtPowers suggests, it needs to be clearly marked as defunct and not applicable.texugo 09:50, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
- You seem almost violently opposed to the very idea of these articles. It's just another way of looking at travel, and having basic guides to the major Interstate highways is a reasonable goal. LtPowers 14:45, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
- I'd suggest re-listing each of these articles individually since group VFDs are always messy. Like Texugo I'm also highly skeptical of non-itinerary highway articles, but for those that haven't previously gone through a VFD process I think the standard "one year to move beyond outline status" rule for itineraries should apply. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:57, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
- If consensus was never reached for the creation of the Routes Expedition, then surely it should not have commenced? I would agree that it should be archived and marked as defunct. As for the existing Route articles, then I would fully concur with Ryan that standard itinerary procedures should be applied.--Burmesedays 00:24, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
- I'm with Ltpowers above: "legitimate expedition pages should never be deleted". The expedition page should clearly be kept. Marking it as defunct is fine by me. What do the (few) participants there think?
- That page should have info on routebox navigation added to it. That is how we now handle highways.
- I'm more-or-less neutral on the actual highway articles. Wrh2 seems to have it right "the standard "one year to move beyond outline status" rule for itineraries should apply." Pashley 01:04, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
- To respond to some points:
- I agree that legitimate expedition pages should be archived rather than deleted, but I disagree that this was ever a legitimate expedition page, in that there was never consensus support for highway articles before this page was thrown out there to encourage their creation. I personally don't actually care whether this expedition page is deleted or defunct-ified but I do want to make clear that just because someone tossed the expedition out there and some people like it does not legitimize this kind of article yet. As Burmesedays notes above, it was supposed to have been discussed and agreed upon before it got this far.
- Feel free to split the highway articles away from this discussion if you wish, but I don't see the point since their fate will still depend on the outcome of this discussion.
- The type of proposed highway articles being debated are not itineraries in any sense other than the fact that they have been started with the itinerary template for lack of anything more appropriate. A finished article of this type would look nothing like an itinerary, which recommends a way to make a trip and the best things to see and do along the way, using whichever starting points, ending points, and routes between which provide the best of the given region. These highway articles would be a different animal entirely, a sort of route reference page, which confines the route to a single highway number and lists everything along the way from end to end.
- With a few notable exceptions like Route 66, people generally don't plan their vacation based on a highway number (and indeed, following old Route 66 itself requires following a number of different modern roads), so these highway articles would only be useful in a piecemeal fashion anyway. Accordingly, they would need to be organized not as a day to day walkthrough as most itineraries are, but rather in a predictable, geographic fashion so the user could quickly find the portion of the road which concerns them. Much of the proposed functionality is already provided by the subsequent implementation of routebox navigation, and much of that which is not would duplicate information that should already have its home elsewhere.
- Most of the route itineraries articles that we do have, such as the Dalton Highway or Route 66 or the Silk Road, are already recognized journeys that people take and hence obvious choices for itinerary templates because they are actual itineraries that people take. However, that does not by any means imply that any and every highway with a number is or will ever be an actual itinerary that people take for its own sake.
- Given the last three reasons, I do not feel that there is any reason why we should afford the same year-long "right-to-trial" to these articles that we afford to actual itineraries-- because it assumes that all highway articles could potentially have a good "itinerary" article written about them if someone puts in the work, ignoring the fact that they are neither itineraries in themselves nor itinerary-style articles in their ideal completed state, and providing no criteria for exclusion other than the "fullness" of the article. In short, giving them all a year to "develop into good articles" presumes the same thing that the premature expedition page did, namely that this type of article was given a license to exist in the first place. They were not, so I don't see any reason why we should just, as a rule, give them all a chance anyway.
- At any rate, of the five US Interstate articles (4, 10, 75, 80, and 94) that were created prior to this current round of stub creation, four of them already pass the proposed one-year criteria anyway, and the other one (I-4), though fully developed and clearly marked as experimental, is a mere 132 miles long and doesn't give us any idea of what a completed I-40 or I-20 or 80 article would even look like, for the purposes of evaluating whether this kind of article should be allowed. Now, if someone wanted to fully develop 3-4 test articles of larger, more major highways on some sandbox pages somewhere, and then lead us into a discussion about whether to create and allow a new category of articles with its own standardized format and criteria, I might be willing to consider it and give more constructive criticism, but allowing this stuff to proliferate as pseudo-itineraries and/or sit around for a year at a time without a consensus mandate or even a clear idea of what an ideal highway article would entail? I adamantly oppose it.texugo 12:20, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
- Archive the expedition page from the expedition's talk page. The Expedition suggestion generated controversy, and its sole purpose was to promote the development of articles that do not meet our article criteria, and thus probably should not have been written in the WT namespace until discussion was resolved. Interstate 4 was the only article that really went anywhere, but I'm dubious that writing highway articles is really something we should be expanding our aims to include. While at the time, I was a bit interested in this idea, and contributed to the US-4 article, the lack of development plus the fact that we really didn't have a consensus for this project suggests to me that it should be shut down. I would also archive Interstate 4 in the same manner (from the expedition talk page), and then delete the various highway stubs/"outlines". --Peter Talk 15:06, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
- Sorry, for some reason "archive ~ from the talk page" does not compute. Could you explain what you mean? texugo 01:36, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
- So put the archive under the Wikitravel talk:Routes Expedition namespace (Wikitravel talk:Routes Expedition/Archive of defunct Expedition page) and link it from the talk page. --Peter Talk 22:54, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
- Hmm, no one else has voted except me. If no one would strongly object, I'll set up the archive as proposed, and as neatly as possible. --Peter Talk 23:07, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
- Sorry, thought my vote was clear. Please go ahead and take care of it. Thanks!texugo 02:48, 14 July 2011 (EDT)