Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:15, 27 June 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Road junction lists page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:ELG WT:RJL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Use of driver location signs for distance

I would like to register my view that we should not be using driver location signs (DLS) to show distance on RJL's in the UK. They are not intended for this purpose, they are not always continuous over a single stretch of road and they don't always start from 0. As roads get realigned (so that the route may become shorter or longer) the DLS will become more inaccurate as I highly doubt that they will replace the signs over the entire stretch of what could potentially be a very long road.

Example 1, the M4: This route used to take a route that was a number miles longer via the original Severn Bridge, however in the 90's it was re-routed via the new Second Severn Crossing. The DLS at Junction 21 states 189.5, then later on at Junction 23A the DLS states 218.5 (or 216.5, can't *quite* make it out). The distance between J21 and J23A is 11.8 miles (19.0 km), so you'd expect the DLS at J23A to be 208.5, but obviously it isn't.

Example 2, A42: As part of phase 2 of HS2, part of the A42 will be realigned, shortening the route in the middle by about half a mile. I suspect all that will happen is that the existing DLS's on that section will be moved closer together, leaving the "number" on the sign to just be a reference rather than an precise distance, as as happened in the M4 example above.

Example 3, A1/A1(M): The location signs on the A1 reset to 0 south of Doncaster and start counting up again.

Example 4, M6 The location signs at it's southern end start at about 130 and count upwards.

How is the distance column calculated in other countries? It would be much more accurate, in my opinion to measure distance on Google Maps (is this acceptable on WP?). We should not be passing off readings from DLS signs as distances to the reader as this is not what they are. Jeni 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Examples 1 and 3 sound a lot like California's postmiles. They were defined in 1964 and haven't been updated since and they reset at county lines. So when a route gets moved even just a little bit, you get a jumbled mess.

It is acceptable to use Google Maps. It is used in the US when we can't find any sort of route log published by the state government. –Fredddie™ 13:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree we shouldn't be using these posts. There's another issue: for instance, on the M11 there are posts both on the main M11 and on routes leading off the M11, e.g. onto the A11...like this which is still technically on the M11 but shows a carriageway called "M"... how is this intended to be represented in this RJLUK schema? I doubt it's been considered. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I hate citing signs. There are a few times when there is no way around it (such as when the text of a sign has to be cited), but this isn't a good practice. Frequently the distances on these signs can be quite off. --Rschen7754 17:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody have a better idea which they would be willing to implement – ie, whoever opens their mouth must find the reliable references concerned. Please don’t all rush at once – you will be disqualified if you forget to bring actual citations with you.

User:The Rambling Man asked how I intended incorporating the letters such as the letter "M" into the RJLUK scheme with the comment "I doubt it's been considered". I have already thought of that – he might like to look at M602 motorway to see how it has been done. Moreover, if there is an anomaly such as a letter changing, he can add a note using the <code>{{ref group = n}}</code> construction as I have done on Junction 9 of the M9 motorway (Scotland). I woudl also expect him to understand why there is a letrter "M" - after all he made an edit to the article driver location signs.

Martinvl (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to take a step back from all this Martinvl, it's obviously getting to you. Thanks for drawing my attention to the M602 article, another you've edited and introduced these flawed templates without consensus. I cannot see there how you have taken account of these differently named carriageways. Moreover, I still don't understand why an "up arrow" should represent "Westbound", but hey, you've ignored all the responses above, so why should you pay any attention to this. We don't actually need these junction distances, not at all, especially as they're clearly using dubious sources. I'm not sure why you think making "an edit" to a particular article means that an editor has digested and understood the entire article. For instance, your appalling "timeline" on the M4 article is a case in point, total joke, utterly confusing. Anyway, as I said, perhaps take a break Martinvl, so you can take the opportunity to reply to all the threads above which you're studiously ignoring. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As Martinvl has noted, I've removed his non-consensusal use of his own bespoke templates on the M602 page, of course please find his version here. Similarly his preferred version of the M9 page which had no consensus is here. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• We should not be using signs as a source, for all the reasons given. I don't like the idea of using Google Maps either. I would rather just not give the distances if there is no real-word reliable source for them. That's what WP:V says, after all. --John (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

  Quite. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

May I propose that we have a single column marked "MP" with a note stating "MP = Values displayed on marker posts and/or driver location signs". We would not specify any units but we would wikilink to both the article Driver location signs and to the Department for Transport document describing the signs. Such a column would be in full accordance with WP:V. If somebody can find a reliable source showing giving distances from the start of the motorway in miles, that could be incorporated onced it has been verified and the notes amended to explain the two columns to the reader. Martinvl (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No. --Rschen7754 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Martinvl (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the consensus is against using such signs. --Rschen7754 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? I have only just made the suggestion and within one minute you took it upon yourself to decide consensus and to proclaim such consensus. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl, do you understand that you need a consensus to push out your preferred way of display? Do you get that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that which is why I posed the question. I also understand that consensus involves everybody, not just Rschen7754 which is why I berated him. Martinvl (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well don't berate anyone. Just stop editing under your own remit. Stop editing articles to use the templates only you prefer. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted to contact the Highways Agency or DfT to see if such sources are available? They can't say no if we don't ask. –Fredddie™ 20:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I was in contact with the DfT a few years ago. Sometimes somebody will send you a spreadsheet under the counter, but the offical line, as I understand it, is that this information is merchandise for which people like mapping companies must pay. This is standard Britsh Government practice - for example, if you visit the Post Office postcode page you can find fifteen postcodes in a day without charge - great for the private user, but the commerical user has to pay for the privillege. Martinvl (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should try again. If we play the Misplaced Pages card, we might get that spreadsheet under the counter. –Fredddie™ 20:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Happily, that example no longer stands; as mentioned here a comprehensive postcode listing is now freely available from the Ordnance Survey here. We now have counter-examples of access to detailed real-time mappable data such as availability of hire bikes in central London. It might be rewarding to make another attempt to find sources. NebY (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I almost fell out of my chair when I looked at those links. These seem to be exactly what we need! –Fredddie™ 15:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Fredddie and I have both had a look at this source and it appeared to be too good to be true. It has a number of problems. Fredddie made a snapshot of all the records pertaining to M898 motorway which can be found here. There are three records in referencing sectors of the M898, giving lengths of 2645 m, 1453 m and 254 m respectively. Neither of us was able to decipher the associated OSODR values. I attempted to identify the sectors by measuring sectors on Google Earth - see diagram to the right. We see a fairly good correlation, but not all the sectors that on the diagram map onto database records - I suspect that they are in the database somewhere, but are associated with the M8 rather than the M898.

This raises the next question - how do we measure the length of the M898 (which is really a spur from the M8) - is it length AB, EB, XB, YB or CB, or should we rather not try and calculate its length, but just quote the appropriate marker posts that are associated with the motorway (not easy in Scotland, but in England we have driver location signs while, for a short period the Welsh published the grid coordinates of all their marker posts on the web. I was able to capture them before they were removed.

Martinvl (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

UK-specific deviations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that that the current situation is untenable. Three sentences and three examples were added some time ago as a compromise, but in the end, I think it has compromised the guidance of this page. To resolve this situation, those permitted deviations should be dropped, and the following text would need to be removed to drop the derogations that were previously added to allow the UK-style format tables.

• From the "Standard columns" subsection:
  • "These columns may be omitted entirely if there is not consensus on what subdivisions to use." would need to be dropped from the discussion of geographic columns.
  • "This column may be split by carriageway or direction based on local signing practices." would need to be dropped from the discussion of the Destinations column.
  • "If the Destinations column has been split into two columns by carriageway or direction, omit this column." would need to be dropped from the discussion of the Notes column.
• From the "Colors" subsection, the entire second table on UK-specific colors would need to be dropped.
• From the "Table footers" section, the third example would need to be dropped.
• From the "Examples" section, the current "M5 motorway" example would need to be dropped, or replaced with a compliant example.

Imzadi 1979 → 18:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Support removal/oppose retention

1. Imzadi 1979 → 18:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
2. No reason why the UK should use an entirely different format from the rest of the world's English Misplaced Pages articles. Rschen7754 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

   If the dual columns are a deal-breaker I may consider it but I'm not very enthusiastic about it. --Rschen7754 00:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

3. Per above. TCN7JM 18:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
4. I think the deviations should be eliminated. I would be willing to keep the provisions for separate carriageways, provided the junction number column was put in the standard place and a two-column span be used where each carriageway's destinations are identical. LJ ↗ 22:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
5. Seconding the qualifications given by Ljthefro. —Scott5114↗ 00:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
6. Get rid of the deviations and no separate columns for each carriageway. –Fredddie™ 00:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
7. Remove the deviations, including separate carriageways. - Evad37 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
8. I'm not sure why the British road junction lists need to be so intricate (and based on Google maps images and these posts that Martnvl is so keen on). This isn't a map, this isn't a replacement for a TomTom, this is Misplaced Pages, we are here to provide an encyclopedic article on everything, including road junction lists. Misplaced Pages is not here to replace sat-navs. Let's keep it simple, and common. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
9. Support: Missing the location out can lead to FAC 1b / FLC 3a (comphrensiveness) failures, as the location of a junction is significant info. Because of the overreliance on advance signs, classified roads at the junction may not be mentioned and that could also cause comphrensiveness fails. Displaying both carriageways is potentially confusing as all destinations are accessible from both directions (unless its limited access), but a reader may not get that impression. The UK specific header can be retained or dropped (I'm neutral), it doesn't need an explanation as to why its blue. Suggest deriving a replacement from my example 2a, as its useful to display a version with coordinates. However, retain the UK-specific "colors" and "table footers" at this time - I think they help with interpretation of the marker icons in the RJL itself. (Note: This is not about complying with the US, but to give best display for UK roads.)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
10. Support - No reason for UK to use different junction list format than rest of the world. Dough4872 22:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Support retention/oppose removal

• Oppose the removal of the only example with coordinates; and the removal of UK-specific colours, which match UK road signs, as set out in UK law (but see note in section below). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Another attempt to steam roll things through with no understanding of the subject in hand. Jeni 09:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the proposal

• The MoS is meant to be descriptive, not proscriptive ("permitted deviations", indeed!). Attempts such as this to change what is done rather than update the MoS to describe what is done, are doomed to fail. They cannot be binding on editors reaching contrary consensus on article talk pages. Further, the proposal as drafted is vague and requires prior knowledge. It should be redrafted making explicitly clear what is being proposed, and its implications (for instance, removal of the only example with coordinates) and what alternatives (status quo or otherwise) are on offer. As many articles may be affected, it should then be advertised as a centralised discussion. Has this proposal, which has specific implications for articles on UK subjects, been mentioned on UK-specific noticeboards? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything you say above, yet another US steamroll! Jeni 09:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Evad37 is from Australia and edits Australian roads... --Rschen7754 18:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Coordinates were not governed by this guideline as Andy keeps trying to point out. The lack of an example showing them should not be considered a reflection on their usage or not. That is a separate debate where we have agreed to disagree. Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
      • This guideline does not govern anything. It describes common and acceptable practice, and as such the example with coordinates should stay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think the proposal is the right approach, as I don't see it as a simple yes/no decision. There are several options, and its possible that some features being used on UK articles may be worth adopting globally. It feels like attempt to steamroll a "you have to change" against a "everything is fine the way it is" opposition, as opposed to both sides actually trying to improve matters.
• That said, some UK specific aspects do seem pointless. The colours for instance. Does a table in the article on a motorway really need a blue header that repeats the road number - isn't that a redundancy?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no attempt to "steamroll" here. This is an attempt to gain consensus to modify some of the MOS, which we've been trying to do for months. TCN7JM 12:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is slightly ridiculous - what features? RJL is a tried and tested format, used in over 40 featured articles. --Rschen7754 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The one feature that the UK tables was supposed to be using was the dual mi/km column set up for distances, a practice that was implemented in the templates used in the US, Canada and elsewhere. Not all articles have been updated to use the templates, but as they are, the dual distance column set up is appearing in a wider assortment of articles.

    That said, the table format used in the UK isn't even consistent in application across the articles. Many articles lack a distance column, let alone have both of them. They don't all apply the color key footer consistently. They don't use the formatting mandated by MOS:DTT that this guideline repeats as a requirement for headers and scopes. The templates for the US, Canada, etc, have those accessibility requirements built in now.

    The UK format isn't really consistent with the format used by the upper-tier articles from the US, Canada, Croatia and Australia. The format fails to meet the requirements of other sections of the MOS, namely MOS:DTT in terms of accessibility, and as used, fails to use capitalization and italics properly. The standards have moved on over time, and the format should be deprecated in favor of the one that's been tested consistently at our upper-tier review forums. Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

    • "mandated by MOS:DTT"? "requirements of other sections of the MOS"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Just a quick note, WP:FLC does require a compliance with MOS, which for technical articles like lists of road junctions means compliance with MOS:DTT, for the benefit of all readers. Of course, a regular (non-featured) article need not have these very simple additions, but it should be encouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
        • FLC may "require compliance" with the MoS, but since the MoS doesn't require that we do anything, that's pretty meaningless. And we certainly are not required to comply with FLC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Yeah, the overuse of italics isn't very helpful at all. I was trying to explain that compliance with MOS is useful. Nothing more. I never said you (or anyone) is required to comply with FLC, or if I did, perhaps you can show me where. Just forget what I said, that's much easier than discussing this further, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Andy, just a quick note, I understand your point, and perhaps I hadn't explained clearly enough, I was only talking from an FLC perspective where we tend to err on the side of the MOS and comply with MOS:DTT. It's a good thing, so screen-reading viewers can benefit from our lists. Frankly I'm surprised the rest of Misplaced Pages hasn't adopted a similar approach to WP:ACCESS but perhaps it's too difficult or too technical for some. In any case, perhaps I went too far with the italics. Hopefully you get where I'm coming from. If not, feel free to ping me or leave me a message, I'll happily try to explain what I've being trying to explain! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
            • In fact, italics are an issue in another sense, as well as ALLCAPS, as many UK road editors have insisted on leaving violations of those MOS guidelines in place in articles, and even revert warring violations of those back in. On another note, we want to set up road articles for success at FAC and FLC. In the US, we have designed our standards so that if an article meets those standards, it will be successful at FAC (we are working on a standard for lists). Surely that must be something that the UK roads project is interested in as well. --Rschen7754 21:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Rschen, you should have said "it will likely be successful at FAC..." USRD standards have come about because of success at FAC, not the other way around. I know what you meant, but I think we should be clear for those who may not have known what you meant. –Fredddie™ 21:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
                • No, I meant what I said; if an article meets the USRD standards, as evaluated at ACR, it is virtually guaranteed to pass a FAC, provided that it isn't an article like California State Route 282 which is not long enough. We have repeatedly changed our standards to more closely match the FA criteria over the years. Over the last few years we have had an 85-90% success rate at FAC; the vast majority of the fails are due to lack of reviewers at the FAC stage. --Rschen7754 21:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to reality, "Does a table in the article on a motorway really need a blue header that repeats the road number - isn't that a redundancy?", it certainly is true that adding colours or graphics introduces "redundancy" in all articles, but I believe that making an article "attractive" to our readers without transgressing our guidelines and policies provides maximum benefit to the reader. Maybe others disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I will agree, it looks nice. The problem is, though, using different colors there means we have to add a color key to the bottom of the table to explain what each color means. Obviously this is no "trouble" at all because we have a template for it, but is it worth having to have a whole second line to the legend just so we can have a decorative table header? —Scott5114↗ 20:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we could use a template which has switches for a UK colour scheme. I'm not convinced one way or another, my key thinking is that this encyclopedia isn't here to replicate road signs or anything, it's here to provide encyclopedic information about roads (amongst other things like frogs and space and toffee). A second legend is technically possible of course, but perhaps not required. I would say, though, that the current legend has phrases that I'm not familiar with (like "concurrency terminus") so we'd need to deal with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The current template does have such a switch; the UK-specific legend is hidden on all non-UK articles. We could clarify "concurrency terminus" with a link, but that's sort of a separate discussion, so perhaps we should wait until things have settled down and we have a stable policy before we get into that. —Scott5114↗ 20:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the colored header at the top is a bit redundant, but if that was a sticking point, I would be fine with leaving it be as a potential compromise. --Rschen7754 21:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The header does feel a bit redundant IMO. That said, if its useful on UK roads it should be equally useful for other countries too (eg Interstates having the shield on the relevant green background?)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not useful in the United States, as there is no government-coordinated color coordination system, and because it borders on violating WP:MOSICON to have the shield there yet again when it already is in the infobox. --Rschen7754 21:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The colours are not there to "replicate road signs"; but to emphasise encyclopedic information in a manner which is widely understood by a large percentage of the likely audience. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples of UK variants

I've created a few different versions of the M5's RJL and placed them on this page. These illustrate the options discussed in thread. I've put a few comments on that page explaining some design choices I made too.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there, about your misrepresentation of the use of coordinates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I dropped the coordinates not because I think they should be kept/removed but for simplicity. There is no standard on how to display them, and their inclusion/non-inclusion isn't the reason for this discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Then please amend your misleading headings; and add a footnote, to reflect that view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Might be easier to add more "with coordinates" versions? So existing without/with coords, global without/with, modified global without/with?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Color question

Is this proper use of the purple color? (i.e. should intersections where a free road interchanges a toll road be colored purple?) As currently worded the guideline is sort of ambiguous. —Scott5114↗ 21:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes. However, like any of the other colors, you should say something in the notes column explaining the purple color. Turnpike interchanges are not always tolled, you know. –Fredddie™ 22:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Too many colours can have a bewildering effect. The tolled areas that I am aware of (all in Europe) are signposted with the words "Toll", "péage" (French) or "Zoll" (German). Examples are here (United Kingdom) and here (France). Also, what do you do if a slip road splits, one part to a trolled sectikon and the other to an untolled section. For example, if you look at the French intersection, you will see two slip roads that are 300 m apart - the road to ], Arras and Reims is a tolled road while the road to Merck is untolled. Had this interchange been built to UK standards, there would have been been one slip road which would have split, wheras Germany or the Netherlands would have had a service road. In short, as it is the road that is tolled, not the interchange, maybe the colour shoudl be left off. Martinvl (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So yes to the color if you must pay a toll to access the road and no color if you do not have pay a toll even if it's a toll road? I think we should codify that. –Fredddie™ 22:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And I assume the toll doesn't have to be assessed right at that ramp, correct? (i.e. one could drive down the toll road for a bit and have to pay at a barrier toll.) Another question: what would a good note be here? Just "Toll road"? —Scott5114↗ 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

On further reflection, any colour should only reflect sections of this road for which a toll is payable. Even this can cause problems, for example the tolls on many British bridges are payable in one direction only. (The authorities work on the principal that all traffic going one way will return, so collecting a double toll one way and nothing the other way reduces the cost of collecting the toll without affecting the amount commected). Martinvl (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is stale, but I've found someone using the color in yet another way—on Interstate 35 in Kansas all of the interchanges on the part concurrent with the Kansas Turnpike are colored purple. We need a standard for this! —Scott5114↗ 09:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the color should be used only at points where somebody traveling on the subject roadway (i.e. the roadway the junction list is created for) would pay a toll if they were to leave highway at that point. Thus, if you're on a free road and you exit to a ramp to a toll road, then that junction is purple. The purple would also be acceptable for a row listing a mainline barrier toll plaza (such as a bridge or tunnel). However, if the subject article is a tolled facility, the purple color should only be used at barrier toll plazas--this helps prevent overuse of the purple color since it should be obvious that a toll will be paid upon entry or exit to the facility otherwise (an explanatory note above the table could clarify if deemed necessary). The use of purple on I-35 in Kansas is excessive, IMHO. -- LJ ↗ 07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that I believe this color was initially intended to be used only for interchanges which require use of electronic toll collection like EZPass in order to legally use them (i.e. there is no cash or pay-by-plate option there). —Scott5114↗ 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It was, but there was support for being able to use the purple color for other toll uses as well. I used it for toll barriers, like LJ described above, on Interstate 90 in Illinois. I think some guidelines should be hashed out, though. –Fredddie™ 22:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, so, correct me if I'm wrong here. Purple should be used:

• When there is a feature (toll bridge, particular interchange) that requires the payment of a toll on an otherwise free subject road.
• When there is an exit from a subject free road to a toll road.
• When there is an interchange that requires ETC only on a subject toll road where cash is otherwise accepted.

I fear we may be having the purple color doing too much. I can kinda see how the first two are related, but the ETC one seems like it could be a bit confusing if one is familiar with the first two usages. Furthermore, there is the question of whether the purple should take precedence over incomplete, concurrency termini, etc. —Scott5114↗ 10:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Table footers

I think this is one where the UK might be doing it better than elsewhere. Having "blue" = motorway, "green" = primary route, "white" = secondary route helps explain what the colours used in M5, A38 and A379 mean to someone unfamiliar with them (eg an American).

Similar information could be useful in the US: A footer with = "Interstate", = "Interstate business loop / spur", = "US Route", helps to explain what the shields mean to someone unfamiliar with them (eg a Brit). Explanations for the relevant state/county routes would be good too. That would need switches to only display those relevant to the specific RJL.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Those legend for those footers were put to explain the meaning of the colored table headers, which some argue are redundant or unnecessary. I don't think putting the icons in the footers would be necessary and would add more visual clutter than is needed. -- LJ ↗ 17:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The real purpose of the footer is to explain the colours used within the table itself (the green for concurrencies, red for limited access etc), as they have no natural meaning, so need an explanatory note.

The shields used within the table on US roads, and any colour patches on UK roads, do have a natural meaning outside WP, but unless you know that meaning they mean nothing to you. Providing minimal explanation - as in "What's that blue shield mean?" or "What's that green colour mean?" could benefit readers.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the links be doing that? Each time appears it's got a link to some sort of Interstate 35 related page after it, e.g. I-35. —Scott5114↗ 17:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

True, and that might be sufficient for US roads. A problem that does affect UK is A roads with primary and non-primary sections. For instance at M5 Junction 21, the A370 to Weston-super-Mare is primary and the A370 to Congresbury is not. So we might have , and the white version of that, in the same point of a RJL and both next to a wikilink to the same article (A370 road)... Without an explanation of why one is green and one is white (to have both as green would be incorrect).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The US doesn't have a government-coordinated color coding scheme like the UK does, so this isn't a very good idea. Also, we would have to include dozens of state/county highway shields in {{LegendRJL}} if this came to pass - see U.S. Route 491 for a route that goes through three states. Finally, Scott's right about the shield being explained immediately after it is used. --Rschen7754 21:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"Incomplete access"

Okay, so at the footer of a lot of the tables, there's a category for "incomplete access", in pink. Many tables use this key by simply assuming a reader will understand that pink means incomplete access (whatever that really means). Firstly, WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't be using colour alone to convey information. Secondly, "incomplete access" seems a somewhat nebulous definition of a junction. Apparently it means that for some junctions it's only accessible from one particular direction? I'm not clear on it, and I tried to add some text to a US list (here) and was undone in double-quick time twice over. Hence I'd just like to understand what "incomplete access" means (and I'm sincere about this, in the UK, I have no idea what "incomplete access" means to a junction) and how to represent it to our international English-speaking audience (not just our US friends who seem to clearly understand this, along with "concurrency terminus" etc....!!!!) Comments, nice ones, encouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read the existing note in the row? It states "Eastbound exit and westbound entrance". That goes beyond just stating "incomplete access" by saying how the interchange's access is incomplete. Therefore we are not using only the colors to portray the incomplete access, but also stating what kind of access the interchange has. TCN7JM 22:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you even understand that some motorways around the world don't "expect" to have access all ways round? "Incomplete access" is not easy to understand at all. Many "regular" road junctions in the UK have this so-called "incomplete access", I don't think our international readers should have to be able to interpret the text in the table to then synthesise an understanding of something called "incomplete access". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So then do you advocate including "complete access" on every row where access is complete? --Rschen7754 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because unless noted otherwise, that's taken for granted. However, "incomplete" and "complete" access is something that needs to be discussed, what does this actually mean? Remember this is for the whole of the English-speaking world, not just the US. In the UK, we don't have a concept of "incomplete access".... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

But apparently it's not in the UK, as you've said elsewhere - when more interchanges have incomplete than complete access, it can't be taken for granted. --Rschen7754 22:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's get to more basic terms. What does "incomplete access" mean? It's not defined in the list, not linked in the key. It doesn't make sense without an explanation. It's been noted above that it means you have to have the "four ramps" or whatever, but in the UK we have no such concept as "incomplete access". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete access means that one or more ramps are missing from the junction, so you are unable to make certain movements at that intersection. The note on the CA-52 list, "no access from SR 52 east to I-5 north", is conveying why the row is pink. It means that if you are on SR 52 east, you can't get on I-5 north, because that ramp is not there. You were probably reverted because "incomplete access" is redundant to that note, and less expressive. —Scott5114↗ 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The key doesn't even explain what "incomplete access" means. It may mean something to the US contributors, but it doesn't mean anything to UK readers. The reason I added the text was that we shouldn't be using colour alone to convey information, especially when we are placing the onus on our international audience to understand what pink means. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And that's why we also have the note in the rows stating how it is incomplete access. TCN7JM 22:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't state how it's "incomplete access" because there's no definition of what "incomplete access" is. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, in that same list, one of the junctions states "No access to southbound Cuyamaca Street from westbound exit" but it isn't coloured pink, despite having "incomplete access" as far as I can see.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And while we're there, why is "Eastbound exit and westbound entrance" (18A) in pink but "Eastbound exit and westbound entrance; signed as exits 18B (south) and 18C (north)" (18BC) not in pink? What makes the former "incomplete access" and the latter "complete access" based on the text? I'm sure there's a good reason, but I'd expect to be able to understand it, and would hope our Featured Article would enable our international (i.e. outside the US) readers to understand it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

At a terminus of the road, that would be complete access. --Rschen7754 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, still not getting it. What's the definition of "complete access" vs "incomplete access"? What's the difference between 18A and 18BC above for the California State Route 52 article? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is movement in all logical directions possible at an interchange, or are there missing ramps that would prevent you from this? --Rschen7754 23:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "movement in all logical directions" means. Nor should we assume there are "ramps". I don't want to start a one-size-does-not-fit-all debate here, but my beef is with the legend (which is unlinked, unexplained and incorrectly used per WP:ACCESS, using colour alone and assuming that our readers understand this project's definition of "completeness"). Small steps could fix that, I've already provided three different scenarios in the one article alone that have different outcomes. Plus I have to go to bed. But please continue in my absence. I'll rejoin in a few hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"All logical directions" is simple. Where two roadways intersect, is it possible to go from northbound to eastbound, northbound to westbound, southbound to eastbound, southbound to westbound, etc. For an intersection/interchange of two crossing roads, there are eight possible traffic movements between the two roadways. If it's a three-way T-intersection, there are only four possible movements between the two roadways. The interchange between M-6 and US 131 and 68th Street would have 16 possible connections between the three roadways, but there is no connection between M-6 westbound and 68th Street. "Incomplete access" means that of the possible movements, one or more are missing. Imzadi 1979 → 23:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So how do I know, from the table alone, how many "logical movements" there are at each junction? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than get into a robust debate about this, how would people feel about changing the words "incomplete access" to a phrase that's still short enough to fit into the legend, but is more specific? --Rschen7754 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That would make sense. Is there a certain phrase you had in mind? TCN7JM 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I asked right from the start, please define "complete access". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

See above on the definition. I disagree that a change in terminology is warranted. The notes, when used properly will explain what the situation is that prevents the interchange or intersection from providing complete access between the intersecting roads. Imzadi 1979 → 23:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How about something like "access not available from all directions (see notes)"? If there's a way to make it shorter but still be explanatory, that'd be nice. —Scott5114↗ 01:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we could change the text in the legend to read Incomplete access. How's that? Imzadi 1979 → 01:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In my view "incomplete access", being a generic term, is sufficient. If we look at M25 motorway we see that three such exits have the colouring of "Incomplete access" - Junctions 1b, 19 and 31. In each of these cases the reason for incompletre access is identified as follows:

• J1b (Anti-clockwise) "Exit via J2 – Dartford (A225)"
• J19 (Anti-clockwise) "No exit"
• J31 (Clockwise) "Access via J30"

I think that all of these clarify what is meant by "Incomplete access"

Martinvl (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "exit via J..." is clearly "incomplete access". Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Scott, how about "not connected in all directions (see notes)"? It's a bit shorter and avoids the "access" term, which I'm sorry to say makes me think more of wheelchair ramps than slip-roads or off-ramps. NebY (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's okay if you know what to look for and are part of the project. Try asking people outside the project. I still can't get to grips with the fact we have, in the route 52 article, notes which say "no access" which aren't pink. Surely people must see this is confusing? And why isn't "Eastbound exit and westbound entrance; signed as exits 18B (south) and 18C (north)" (18BC)" in pink? Why do I have rely on being able to interpret these esoteric notes and work out why some are pink and some aren't? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If the intersection of two roads only has three legs (say there's no continuation of the east–west roadway to the east), then there logically would be no need for a way for traffic to enter the east–west highway going east if it ends there. The notes still describe the highway as only having an eastbound exit, as all eastbound traffic must exit, and a westbound entrance, as the only way to access SR 52 westbound is to enter there. That's not incomplete access though, because all logical connections are still provided. Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. How does a reader who is not aware of "all logical connections" in this case (where you have only three legs) understand this? It seems a case of "if you know, you know" and if you don't know (like me, or presumably a large volume of our non-road project readers) then it's just confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's assumed that turning off the road into a ditch is not a logical connection, and neither is making a U-turn. --Rschen7754 09:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm sure someone said above about a junction which may only have "three legs", I didn't mention ditches or u-turns. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

At the terminus of a road, it's assumed that you can not turn in the direction the road would have continued in... because the road has ended. --Rschen7754 09:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I give up. I'm clearly not getting it, maybe it's the terminology used or maybe I'm just too stupid. It remains unclear to me, I imagine it would be unclear to many others. More importantly, making our readers understand this "logical exit" and to derive it from the notes, so they understand why some are pink and some aren't remains an issue as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

British road atlases use the word "restricted" (my AA road atlas) or "limited" here rather than "incomplete". The word "incomplete" implies "still under construction". I therefore suggested that the word "incomplate" be replaced with either "limited" or "restricted". Martinvl (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Limited" and "restricted" make me think of weight/height limits and pinch-points. How about "not completely connected" or "not fully connected"? NebY (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"limited access" seems clear to me. I don't see how that could be confusing. With that said, "incomplete access" is clear to me too, but I'll admit that's a common term on US maps and I'm perhaps just used to it. Above it is mentioned that "incomplete access" implies that access is under construction, which is correct. It's an access that hasn't yet been opened to traffic or doesn't yet exist. Dave (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Checking some maps in my possession, another common term is "partial interchange" (vs. complete interchange). How about those? Dave (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with that too. --Rschen7754 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds better for US RJLs, but as per ], the word "junction" should appear on UK RJLs rather than the word "interchange". Martinvl (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And the color is used for at-grade junctions in the US where access is restricted, so one can't assume it would only be used for interchanges. Imzadi 1979 → 07:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've made a diagram that might hopefully explain what constitutes "complete" and "incomplete" access. I can point out some real-world examples these are based on if it would help to see satellite photos. —Scott5114↗ 09:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that by now those of us who are taking part in this discussion know what is meant by the term "incomplete interchange" in the context of a RJL. We are debating whether or not this is the appropriate wording taking into account terminology used elsewhere in both the UK and the US. Martinvl (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't speak on others' behalf Martin. Certainly "interchange" should not be used in UK articles, we use "junction". I'd still like to gain some outside-of-the-project views as to what Joe Bloggs thinks "incomplete junction" or "incomplete access" means. To me this means unfinished, not that the junction provides limited access to certain directions. So far, all those telling me how obvious this terminology is is either an American or a member of this project, or both. Don't forget we need to appeal to everyone at Misplaced Pages, not just the project members, or those who already know this stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In common UK vernacular, what terms are used to distinguish between an at-grade junction, verses a junction with grade separations and connecting ramps? That may provide some perspective in coming up with a common terminology. Dave (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked the Highway Code which is the government-sponsored "rules of the road" for learner drivers (see here). We don't distinguish between at-grade junctions and grade-separated junctions, though we do have roundabouts (in large numbers) and cross-roads. In practice, there is little or no confusion as to whether a junction is grade-separated or not - any intermediate-sized junction is usually a roundabout (or in sme cases a "gyratory system") and we sometimes use teh word "Flyover" where appropriate (for example, the Hammersmith flyover). Martinvl (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well there you go, I've been driving for twenty years in the UK, Europe, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia and haven't come accross the term "at-grade junction" ever. Nor do we ever talk about "ramps".... not in a normal community (i.e. outside of this project!). Hence my concern we're not particularly accessible to many non-project readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I never pretended those were common terms, I was asking what are the common terms for those concepts. On a semi-related tangent, I think this is getting exaggerated. Apparently interchange IS used in the UK in media that appeals to the average Joe. I found no shortage of the word interchange used to describe a grade-separated junction of motorways in just a cursury search of popular British media Lea interchange Gravity Hill Interchange choke points around interchanges "Britain's best known motorway interchange" Almondsbury interchange to close. Dave (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Accepted, we do have the odd "interchange", a neologism I suppose, another degradation of British English. Yes, certain junctions are formally known as the "XYZ Interchange" but usually, in fact almost always, these are referred to as "junctions". Moreover, I still have no idea what an "at-grade junction" is (nor "grade-separated junction" as you now introduce), nor do we ever use "ramp" in this context, a ramp is something kids launch themselves off on a BMX (or Evel Knievel launched himself over parked cars), unless, as Martin points out below, you mean "slip road"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What about using the term missing movements? I think this would be relatively clear to the average reader, especially when explained with the required note. It avoids needing to distinguish between 'interchange'/'junction' and other regionally specific terminology. It also allows for the using a phrase like "eastbound exit and westbound entrance" at a route terminus without the red background since no logical movements are missing. -- LJ ↗ 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No - this would probably confuse all readers, especially those readers whose native language is not English. We need to use the same vocabulary that is used by the readership. Maybe we need to recognise that the Americans and the British have different vocabularies when it comes to road - to the extent that in the United Kingdom, pedestrians are advised to always walk on the pavement, but they are not advised to always do so in the United States.

PS - further to what The Ramnbling Man wrote, in the UK one joins a motorway via a slip road. Martinvl (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, no "ramps" no "grade-separated junction" (what the hell is that?!), slip roads and junctions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec w/ Scotts post below)If you want to learn what grade separation or At-grade intersection mean, the answers are on this very website. There is no article for ramp, but both the articles on grade separation as well as interchange (road) explain that it is an Americanism with the UK equivalent being slip road. Or you could make a 4th post bemoaning this horrific introduction of new big and complicated words. (OK sorry for the sarcasm I couldn't resist). I doubt this is an example of the degradation of British English, the Guardian article makes it clear that the word is in use in both official contexts as well as familiar contexts, so it's no more of a contamination than anything else really. I didn't have to scour the internet to find those, I spent all of 3 seconds to find those 5 or 6 usages of the term. The larger point being is there's no value in degrading this into an argument over British verses US English. The two are more alike than different and I'm sure working together, mutually understood wording can be found, or as Scott just proposed the use of templates can change the wording as appropriate. Dave (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

{{LegendRJL}} already displays different information if you tell it it's on a British article. Rather than perform the impossible task of trying to reconcile British English with American English ("ramp" and "interchange" are common terms here), why don't we just have it display the appropriate terms on British articles? Then we could focus on just making sure that the terms used are common in the country they're displayed on. —Scott5114↗ 22:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Coordinates

There was no agreement in the discussion above to remove all coordinates from the examples, so I have again reverted an attempt to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you reverted more than just that. There appears to have been an agreement to remove UK-specific deviations (see a few items above) and that's what's happened. (I have no dog in this fight, I just saw this slow motion revert war on my watch list). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A single change was made. It was bad. I reverted it. Further, the proposal !voted upon (which I said was unclear and should be reworded; but wasn't) included (my emphasis): "the current 'M5 motorway' example would need to be dropped, or replaced with a compliant example". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well the removal of UK-specific deviations included the use of geotags, which don't appear to be used in any other form of RJL, was just a single edit, i.e. removal of the UK-specific tables and associated geotags etc. That's all I'm saying. Probably would have been worth arguing the point on the talk page over the past couple of months. Nothing more to add here from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked the comments on this very point which I and others made, in the now-closed section, above. The use if coordinates is not a "UK-specific deviation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you appear to have overlooked the fact that I have no interest in this really other than to dissuade you from slow-motion revert-warring and to look at the detail of the closure. If I missed the other examples in the MOS where geotags where used then I apologise. Last post here from me. Good luck with your geotags! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add coordinates to another example with the same caveats that the UK version had, but don't revert the consensus (as judged by an uninvolved editor) to remove the UK deviations. –Fredddie™ 21:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No uninvolved editor has found a consensus to remove all coordinates from the examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I am suggesting you be bold and add coordinates to another example because nobody else is going to do it for you. –Fredddie™ 21:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else is expected to do it - but the existing example shouldn't be removed unless and until they do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The existing example needs to be junked for other reasons. Look, Andy, this discussion isn't even ABOUT coordinates, you're just inserting yourself into the discussion for the mere purpose of being obstructionist so you can continue your coordinate-worship. Knock it off, dude. —Scott5114↗ 22:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate: we were told that "the current 'M5 motorway' example would need to be dropped, or replaced with a compliant example.". The former option was opposed. If you believe that "the existing example needs to be junked", then feel free to apply the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no good reason to retain an example, any example that contains formatting that runs contrary to the text of this section of the Manual of Style. To do so, when the text of the guideline has been altered, is confusing. In fact, until a year or so ago, this section of the overall MOS was neutral to the usage of coordinates. Given the existence of MOS:COORDS, it should not be necessary to include an example here using them. Imzadi 1979 → 01:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Which part of "If you believe that "the existing example needs to be junked", then feel free to apply the latter." would you like someone to explain to you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I obviously have a known and cemented stance on the topic, I honestly believe you need to step back Andy and see that this is not our attempt to sweep coordinates under the rug. This is an MOS page that should show fellow editors the compliant examples that follow the guidelines set out within. The implementation of coords is not dependent upon these examples, and so the removal of an example does not change the consensus or the guideline. Hell, even if the example is cleaned up, I'm not going to complain... just don't bring them across the pond :P - Floydian  _¢ 02:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reinstated the earlier version of the UK-style RJL. It should not be deleted, but should be replaced by an agreed layout. I had a try a few months ago to bring something in, but I had so little cooperation, that I just gave up. If people can stop getting hot-headed, we might be able to make some progress. It might be worth seeking some mediation on the matter rather than entering into numerous edit wars. Martinvl (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I stole User:Nilfanion's example that has no UK derivations, and reinserted the coordinates, in roughly the same way they were in the old example. Is that acceptable? --Rschen7754 06:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A number of comments:

• I would like to see the banner with the roads name reinstated with the standard UK colours.
• I would like to see a note that distances are taken from driver location signs.
• The location column is meaningless - it should be removed.
• The use of "chopsticks" on the motorway signs is incorrect - "chopsticks" are used to denote a boundary between the Queen's Highway (where everybody has access) and "Special Roads" (ie roads where access is limited to certain classes of traffic)
• Work needs to be done to ensure that the icons shown road numbers are the same height.

Other points will come later - can we work on these please. Martinvl (talk)@~

• I personally am okay with the colors, but most people weren't, and we have to respect that.
• Can be done.
• No, per the close.
• Can be done.
• Can be done. --Rschen7754 06:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the "locations" column is best decided by the British editors and that editors from outside the UK be asked to respect our view - after all we probably know our own country better that outsiders. Martinvl (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so WP:OWN. Gotcha. I understand now. --Rschen7754 07:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regarding the chopsticks, I asked over 3 months ago if I should make chopstickless sign panels and got no response. –Fredddie™ 07:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ummm... I developed that location information, as a Brit, with full knowledge of how UK geography works. Its far from meaningless in my view. Further improvement of how its displayed may be useful, but its not junk info.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A question for Nilfanion - why did you choose local authority boundaries as your criteria? Motorways are not maintained by local authorities, but by the Highways Agency (or equivalent bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and from what I have seen, technically lie outside local authority boundaries. Would it not have been more appropriate to choose magisterial districts? After all, if you get fined for a traffic offence, that will be you point of interest - magisterial district and local authority district boundaries do not coincide. Alternatively, would it not have been appropriate to select the local authority who maintains the roads immediately off the junction? After all, if you damage your vehicle as a result of poor road maintenance, they are the people from whom you would claim damages. But their boundaries do not necessarily coincide with local authority or magisterial district boundaries. Remember, Napoleon never conquered Britain, so the hierarchical system of government that he imposed on most of Western Europes and which was adopted by the United States, Australia and elsewhere does not exist here. Martinvl (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Was the above RfC advertised to interested projects, as requested? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)