Talk:Exit number

Old talk[edit]

This seems rather POV against the system. I don't feel like working with it but someone else may want to. --SPUI 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've NPOVed it; it should maybe be renamed exit number and expanded to cover all systems though. --SPUI (talk) 00:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest (as you can infer from my change :-) tha t you hadn't quite NPOV'd it enough, and I think I've hayulpt (as the girl on the Rice-A-Roni ads used to put it).
--Baylink 04:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old mile numbers[edit]

Putting this here as a holding place:

I-93 MA northbound:

mile 24 exit 20 - 110/113
mile 26 exits 21-22 - 213/pelham st

I-95 ME northbound:

exit 1 mile 0.5 - to 103
exit 2 mile 1 - 1/byp 1/236

I-95 RI northbound had exits 5S-N (RI 102)

Taiwan regress[edit]

Taiwan's freeway #1 switched from kilometer numbered exits to sequential for some reason.

In 2004, the freeway authorities decided to end their experiement with sequential exits on the #1 freeway and reverted back to the kilometer numbered exits. Allentchang 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M4 Durban[edit]

I removed the reference to the southern part of the M4 in Durban having sequential numbering as maps reveal this is not the case. The first exits south of the city centre are are numbered 1, 2, 4. The confusion seems to arise because most are roughly one kilometre apart and so appear to have sequential numbers, but several urban South African freeways are similar in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this means[edit]

"A number of European countries (including the Netherlands, Belgium and France) do not number motorway intersections, apparently because one cannot "exit" the motorway there." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.112.66 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is removing important points[edit]

One of the listed "disadvantages" of distance-based is ""Suffixes are required when the same mile of highway contains multiple exits". Previously there was a refutation of such as a disadvantage, "for calculation purposes, suffixed exits in a distance-based system can be approximated by using the number without a suffix", which was removed.

Similarly, another "disadvantage" is "Businesses and motorists have to adapt to the changes, and it costs money to replace the signs (as well as for temporary "old exit" tabs to ease the transition)." This was refuted with "these are general disadvantages to any change in a highway system" and "these disadvantages do not apply when a new road is built and marked with distance-based numbers from the start" which were also removed.

Finally, someone replaced speculation with other speculation, regarding the Atlantic City-Brigantine connector. Currently the speculation is that NJ didn't want to deal with many suffixed exits, while previously the speculation was that NJ didn't want to renumber the ACE (since the AC-B is an extension from the zero point of the ACE). I think neither speculation is appropriate on WP.

--162.239.236.97 (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

error in "extreme example" of distance based exits[edit]

The section listing disadvantages of distance based exits says that on I-70 in Kansas City "there are 23 exits in the same mile, numbered 2A through 2Y", which is incorrect. The actual exit numbers on I-70 are 2A thru 2M, and they extend over somewhat more than 2 miles. Exits 2N thru 2Y do exist, but they are on different highways (I-35 and I-670). Since this number scheme covers multiple highways over a distance of several miles, it can't really be used as an example of distance based numbering. Unless someone has a good reason for keeping it, I will remove this example from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.37 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the KC example is faulty / misleading. Since you didn't remove it, or someone restored it, I'll remove it now. Ebow (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 0[edit]

I am trying to add the following citation for Exit 0s:

"Exits". Kurumi. Archived from the original on 2023-12-17. Retrieved 2023-12-17. [Conneticut] will not use Exit 0. Some states do use this at the start of a freeway.

I believe it passes USPS, since it is by an expert in the field (esp. for CT), Scott Oglesby, and because he has been referenced by multiple reliable third-party sources, which include:

These are the top three results I have found that reference his work, either directly, or as a valid source for "further reading". Secondly, the contributor who reverted my edit, @Imzadi1979, seems to be alright with not incorporating this reference in this article, while being aware of a reference from the same website in another article, at Connecticut Route 40, see 1, where at the time of his edit, a reference from Kurumi existed therein: Connecticut Roads, Route 40, which sets a double standard. Clearly, this article (Exit number) is in need of references, and this reference that I am trying to incorporate is of [high enough] quality, and substantiated at least in [good] part by trustworthy third-party publications. Thank you for your clarification, and input on this matter, [and let's go ahead and include this source! Radlrb (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)] Radlrb (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that edit of mine from 2010, Radlrb that was part of a general AWB-based editing run to remove duplicative deprecated parameters in articles using {{infobox road}}, so calling out that edit as "proof" of some "approval" of mine of a source within that article is not correct. Since this is something totally different, it's a stretch to call that edit some sort of approval of the source, especially since based on that edit summary, AWB was not touching anything more than the infobox parameter names. Even if it was proof of an approval, that edit was from June 2010, or more than 13.5 years ago. A reasonable editor should allow me the grace to change my mind in that timeframe.

As for roadgeek sites in general, I personally think several of them are quite reliable, and I've been personally directed to one in my research by personnel at the Library of Michigan, other libraries, and the Michigan Department of Transportation. That said, they're still self-published, and consensus on Wikipedia has not held them to be reliable. If the Reliable Sources Noticeboard would like to give one or more of them a stamp of approval, that would be good news, but given the current climate on Wikipedia regarding road-related articles, and the actions of various editors to remove roadgeek SPSs, I do not see RSN doing that.

My current opinion is that where existing article content is known to come from these sites, and where that content is relatively noncontroversial, retaining but tagging an existing citation is a good middle way forward that doesn't involve gutting articles of noncontroversial content. This is different from adding a new citation to a roadgeek site to existing content that does not have the connection to that source. In those cases, we should find better options, which can involve updating the existing content to better reflect that source. Imzadi 1979 → 07:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no way of me knowing whether you regularly view these pages, as it is your specialty here in Wikipedia, so it is also natural to have [somewhat of an "expectation"] that you would have been aware of the reference, and I extend my due apology. I agree, that a specialized reference for a non-controversial attribution is more acceptable for a self-published source, however, why can't we independently audit and vouch for these sites ourselves, in given contexts? Aren't three third-party references enough, especially from California Transit, which would have certainly vetted the information on the website before including it? I still believe it is an acceptable source, however I respect your viewpoint since you are more versed in both the history of U.S. Highways, and the sources that are used. I would say, that you can be WP:Bold in assessing these yourself too! Thank you for your reply and input, and we can leave it to you to decide on whether to pursue further clarification and inclusion of select "roadgeek" (I do not like that term, it is [at least partially] self-harming, IMO) for validity as sources. Radlrb (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]