YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!


Jump to: navigation, search

Wikitravel talk:Routes Expedition

16,926 bytes removed, 18:49, 29 September 2011
I *think* this is the best place to sweep this from the pub
{{disclaimerbox|This project is defunct, and <big>'''[[Wikitravel talk:Routes Expedition/Archive|archived here]]'''</big>. Please see the [[#vfd discussion]] below for more information.}}
{{infobox|Other related archived pages:|
*[[Wikitravel talk:Routes Expedition/List of US Interstates]]
*[[Wikitravel talk:Routes Expedition/Interstate 4]]
{{infobox|Also see:|
*[[Talk:List of US Interstates]]
*[[Talk:Interstate 4]]
==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 you[[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]] 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 [[Wikitravel:The traveller comes first|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. [[User:LtPowers|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 &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 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 [[Wikitravel:Requests for articles#United States|this discussion]]. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 11:56, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
==Intention Statement==
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)
==In lieu Update of highway articles, how about..?Routebox experiment==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:<table border="1" RULES=NONE FRAME=BOX align=center ><tr><td align=right><font size="1"><b>[[Amarillo]]</b> ・・・・・ [[Weatherford]] ・・・・ </font></td><td align=center><font size="1">'''W'''</font></td><td>[[Image:I-40.png|noframe|12px]]</td><td align=center><font size="1">'''E'''</font></td><td align=left><font size="1"> ・・・・ [[Shawnee]] ・・・・・ '''[[Little Rock]]'''</font></td></tr><tr><td align=right><font size="1">'''[[Wichita]]''' ・・・・・ [[Edmond]] ・・・・ </font></td><td align=center><font size="1">'''N'''</font></td><td>[[Image:I-35.png|noframe|12px]]</td><td align=center><font size="1">'''S'''</font></td><td align=left><font size="1"> ・・・・ [[Norman]] ・・・・・ '''[[Dallas]]-[[Fort Worth]]'''</font></td></tr><tr><td align=right><font size="1">'''[[Wichita Falls]]''' ・・・・・ [[Chickasha]] ・・・・ </font></td><td align=center><font size="1">'''SW'''</font></td><td>[[Image:I-44.png|noframe|12px]]</td><td align=center><font size="1">'''NE'''</font></td><td align=left><font size="1"> ・・・・ [[Stroud (Oklahoma)|Stroud]] ・・・・・ '''A [[Tulsa]]'''</font></td></tr></table>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'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:AHeneenRoutebox navigation|AHeneenpolicy page]] 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]] 06:39been created, 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 so 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 discussion 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.::been moved [[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 Wikitravel 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:LtPowersRoutebox navigation|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 &ndash; [[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 [http06:// European route network]? In a lot of European countries they are the only route designation24, 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) {{routebox-3| 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)
::== Comment ==I 'm of the opinion that, while we don't quite get you- the images are already replaceablewant to duplicate information, indexing it in multiple ways is a good thing. There is an image field for each line in We've got wikilinks, breadcrumb navigation based on the template article hierarchy, and itineraries that cover some routes, plus you just type can search either on the image name therewiki 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 [[User:Texugo|Texugoplunge forward]] 02:35and build it. I'd say the latter is the correct course. Glad someone's doing it, 7 December 2008 (EST)though it's mostly outside my range of interests.
::: There I find myself wondering how it might apply, if at all, in areas where driving is nothing to ''get'' :) It was just a shoutnot an important option. For one example, in case anyone was contemplating automating see [[Driving_in_China#Dangers]] for why not and [[High-speed_rail_in_China]] for the thing with a script or something like thatbest alternative. --I think the [[User:Sertmann|Stefan (sertmann)Trans-Siberian Railway]] <small><sup>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. [[User_talkUser:SertmannPashley|TalkPashley]]</sup></small> 0211:4112, 7 16 December 2008 (EST)
One quick question about :Just because you didn't refer to either the templateroutebox navigation system or to making articles for individual highways, I wonder which may be too much detail you are referring 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 as the next locale is discussion for the terminus? Should the space where the next large city goes say ''Terminus''? routebox navigation system has recently moved [[UserWikitravel talk:PerryPlanetRoutebox navigation|PerryPlanethere]] <small><sup>. Could you clarify a bit? [[User_talkUser:PerryPlanetTexugo|TalkTexugo]]</sup></small> 1211:2919, 7 16 December 2008 (EST)
: I am wondering if we could get Canadian symbols? There is a bunch-some are on Wikipedia[logo] but we cannot usemeant the routeboxes. Just wondering. [[User:EdmontonenthusiastPashley|<font color="#339989">'''edmontonenthusiast [ee]'''</font>Pashley]] <sup><small>[[User talk10:Edmontonenthusiast|<font color="#8848d7">'''.T.A.L.K.'''</font>]]</small></sup> 12:3400, 7 17 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. ==vfd discussion==* [[Interstate 5]]* [[Interstate 15]]* [[Interstate 12]]* [[User:Texugo|TexugoInterstate 80]] 13:38, 7 December 2008 (EST)::The * [[Interstate highway shields are in the public domain 8]]Not real itineraries (as creations of the Ui.Se. federal government). no one says "I'm not sure of the status of the Canadian 400-series highway shields; Commons thinks they're in the public domain, and think I'm inclined ll confine my trip to believe them. As for formats, I would like to see the -15"[[:wikiPedia:control city|control cities]]" bolded. In the case ) and not routes of a terminus, just leave the space blank, or write '''END'''special interest (i. If a control city is the next destination, then we can either have just that city or have the next two control citiese. [[User:LtPowers|LtPowersRoute 66]] 17:30, 7 December 2008 (ESTetc.):::Sounds good. I'd say for the last point, have the next two control cities if the next destination is A few highway articles still exist as a control city. holdover from [[User:PerryPlanet|PerryPlanetAHeneen]] <small><sup>'s push to allow it via the largely defunct [[User_talkWikitravel:PerryPlanetRoutes expedition|TalkRoutes expedition]]</sup></small> 19:16, 7 December 2008 (EST)::::Ah, my original html mock up had . Most of 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 purposes for starting that ended up that way. I agree that if the next city is a big one being taken over by the following should also be, just for consistency's sake. [[UserWikitravel:TexugoRoutebox navigation|TexugoRoutebox navigation]] 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 and consensus has never established that are major enough to include) we want articles for any and every highway shields from other countries. Also, it may be possible to set up a helper-template that takes care - the creation 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). [[UserWikitravel:LtPowersRoutes expedition|LtPowersRoutes expedition]] 09:58page was rather premature. Its continued existence promotes further creation of such articles, 8 December 2008 (EST)::::::Feel free to diddle with the template. so Ithink it'm not all that advanced making those things. Maybe you can copy the current template to [[Template:Routeboxs time we deleted it or marked it as defunct as well, and/or re-3/test]] opened discussion about what to toy do with it and show me what you mean herethe other existing non-touristic highway articles. ::::::Also if there are no objectionsAt this point we still do not, by default, I'd like allow this kind of article 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 worksbe created. Anyone have a problem with a test run? ::::::[[User:Texugo|Texugotexugo]] 1000:3756, 8 December 2008 6 June 2011 (ESTEDT)
:::::::Nope, *I think you should, it will help us strongly object to see quicker if this is going to work & be usefullumping the expedition page in with the highway pages. Very different arguments apply as they are very different types of pages.. looks promising though! &ndash; [[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 feel strongly that probably tomorrowlegitimate expedition pages should ''never'' be deleted, only archived. 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:TexugoLtPowers|TexugoLtPowers]] 0809:0028, 9 December 2008 6 June 2011 (ESTEDT)
Good to see real-life examples ::I lumped them together because in Wikitravel articles! In general I like it, but this case the expedition page was clearly the awkwardness of justification for creating the Pennsylvania articles highway article pages (seems like the coverage there is rather poor, with few same user signed his name on the expedition page and then proceeded to create highway articles) somewhat hinders it. But that's an issue with However the Pennsylvania articles, not the freeway templates. I do have a couple creation of things to say about this expedition in the templates though...*I think they would work better being centered at the very bottom of the page, right above the article status templates. In first place was never really sanctioned by consensus-- it was a large Get out section, like Pittsburgh, they just seem to get lost plunge forward in the text.*There's one particular case which seems a tad awkward, and direction that is in we ultimately decided we didn't want to go. In the [[Harrisburg]] template where it shows excitement over the next destination on I-76 west being [[Youngstown]], Ohio. Againnew routebox navigation, this kind of goes back to the issue of Pennsylvania coverage, but really. I-76 passes pretty close to Pittsburgh, without going aborted expedition slipped through the actual town (then againcracks, so does I-79). Close enough that I feel it might warrant being currently its page is still sitting there encouraging the next destination after Harrisburgcreation of pages which, in practice, are routinely vfd'd and deleted. But this begs the broader question - what If we do you do when your roadway passes ''near'' a destination"archive it", rather than ''through'' it? as [[User:PerryPlanet|PerryPlanetLtPowers]] <small><sup>suggests, it needs to be clearly marked as defunct and not applicable.[[User_talkUser:PerryPlanetTexugo|Talktexugo]]</sup></small> 1209:3250, 10 December 2008 6 June 2011 (ESTEDT)
:::I noticed that about You seem almost violently opposed to the Pennsylvania very idea of these 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 It'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 s just [[DentonWikitravel:Other ways of looking at travel|another way of looking at travel]] where 35 splits into two. I'm going to switch it over , and having basic guides to the center for the moment because having it right aligned makes major Interstate highways is 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 bedtimereasonable goal. [[User:TexugoLtPowers|TexugoLtPowers]] 1314:1845, 10 December 2008 6 June 2011 (ESTEDT)
::::For highways passing near cities rather than through them, itI's going to have to be a judgment calld suggest re-listing each of these articles individually since group VFDs are always messy. If the road signs on the highway point out the city as a destination (e.g., xxx miles to Pittsburgh signs on Like Texugo I'm also highly skeptical of non-76)itinerary highway articles, then it certainly should be included in the sequence. (Note but for those that Pittsburgh haven''is'' an official control city for t previously gone through a VFD process I-76 and think the PA Turnpike and so standard "one year to move beyond outline status" rule for itineraries should be includedapply.) 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)User:Wrh2|RochesterRyan]] probably should mention that city, but then we have to ask what counts as a suburb... &bull; ([[Usertalk:LtPowersWrh2|LtPowerstalk]] ) &bull; 15:2757, 10 December 2008 6 June 2011 (ESTEDT)
:::::Good idea, LtPowers. That sounds like If consensus was never reached for the best way to handle that situation. Anyway, I just went through creation of the Texas/Oklahoma deal and I really like what I see. I like how you handled Denton, Texugo. Looks nice. OverallRoutes Expedition, then surely it just looks fantastic and should not have commenced? I can't wait to help this expand across the country. It's just so convenient to have there, to would agree that it should be able to hop from town to town without thinking about itarchived and marked as defunct. And my worries about excluding material that would be in regional As for the existing Route articles largely vanished when , then I saw would fully concur with Ryan 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..standard itinerary procedures should be applied. --[[User:PerryPlanet|PerryPlanet]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:PerryPlanetBurmesedays|TalkBurmesedays]]</sup></small> 1500:4224, 10 December 2008 7 June 2011 (ESTEDT)
:I'm with Ltpowers above::::: I took a look at it and really like it. It"legitimate expedition pages should ''s very handy for quickly seeing what cities/towns lie along a highway, what you can do there, etc. Inever'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 expresswaysbe deleted". Would there The expedition page should clearly be any objection to using old-fashioned two lane highways that are key roads in moving people and goods around (ekept.gMarking it as defunct is fine by me., What do the Trans-Canada highway(few)participants there think? A second thing : That page should have info on routebox navigation added to it. That is what to do when the Interstate hits an international borderhow we now handle highways. For example, the : I'm more-or-5 hits less neutral on the Canadian border, becomes Hwy 99 and continues on to Vancouver, Whistler and points northactual highway articles. I'd prefer Wrh2 seems to see have it right "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 standard "one year to move beyond outline status" rule for Hwy 99 heading south from Vancouveritineraries should apply. " [[User:ShaundPashley|ShaundPashley]] 1901:1504, 10 December 2008 7 June 2011 (ESTEDT)
==Update on Routebox experiment==::To respond to some points:::* I agree that <i>legitimate</i> expedition pages should be archived rather than deleted, but I put disagree that this was ever a <i>legitimate</i> expedition page, in a few hours to flesh that there was never consensus support for highway articles before this page was thrown out for better examinationthere to encourage their creation. Routebox navigation I personally don't actually care whether this expedition page is more deleted or less complete for 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 [[Panhandle (Texas)User:Burmesedays|Texas PanhandleBurmesedays]] 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 [[Great Plains Country|Oklahoma Great PlainsRoute 66]] regions, plus areas from Oklahoma City down 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 [[DallasDalton Highway]]-or [[Route 66]] or the [[Fort WorthSilk Road]], are already recognized journeys that people take and everything on 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 north of 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, Ido not feel that there is any reason why we should afford the same year-long "right-to-20 as far west as [[Odessa (Texas)|Odessa]]. Routes 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 include all US interstates state, and US Routes which pass through providing no criteria for exclusion other than the "fullness" of the area as well as article. In short, giving them all a handful year to "develop into good articles" presumes the same thing that the premature expedition page did, namely that this ''type'' of Texas routes which provide access article was given a license to article destination otherwise left out of exist in the networkfirst place. They were not, so I was at first don't see any reason why we should just, as a rule, give them all a little leary chance anyway. ::At any rate, of putting in the full set of five US routes Interstate articles ([[Interstate 4|4]], [[Interstate 10|10]], [[Interstate 75|75]], [[Interstate 80|80]], and supplemental state routes[[Interstate 94|94]]) that were created prior to this current round of stub creation, four of them already pass the proposed one-year criteria anyway, but and the result other one ([[Interstate 4|I-4]]), though fully developed and clearly marked as experimental, is that about 65% a mere 132 miles long and doesn't give us any idea of what a completed I-40 or I-20 or [[Interstate 80|80]] article would even look like, for the destination still have only one or two routes listedpurposes 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 only then lead us into a discussion about whether to create and allow a very few have new category of articles with its own standardized format and criteria, I might be willing to consider it and give more than 3constructive criticism, with 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.[[DallasUser:Texugo|texugo]] having the most at 12:20, 7. June 2011 (EDT)
In *'''Archive''' the process expedition page from the expedition's talk page. The Expedition suggestion generated controversy, and its sole purpose was to promote the development of implementing all thisarticles that do not meet our [[wiaa|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 had some thoughts about guidelines 'm dubious that writing highway articles is really something we should implement if be expanding our aims to include. While at the time, I was a bit interested in this is going idea, and [[Talk:Interstate 4|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 consistentshut down. I would also '''archive''' [[Interstate 4]] in the same manner (from the expedition talk page), and then '''delete''' the various highway stubs/"outlines". --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 15:06, comprehensive7 June 2011 (EDT):Sorry, for some reason "archive ~ from the talk page" does not compute. Could you explain what you mean? [[User:Texugo|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 usefullink it from the talk page. Here are my ideas --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 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. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 23:07, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
*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 placename in our search seems to work.*When different types of routes are used, they should be listed in the following order::*High speed train lines :*Regular train lines:*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, 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 or 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]]Sorry, 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 commentsthought my vote was clear. Please explore the areas I've done with the above proposed guidelines in mind, go ahead and give me your comments. If after the next round take care 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.Thanks![[User:Texugo|Texugotexugo]] 0602:2248, 13 December 2008 14 July 2011 (ESTEDT)

Navigation menu