Talk:Highway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longest highway?[edit]

Which part of the Pan American Highway is supposed to be the longest in the world, north or south of the Darien Gap?  :) It may be the longest highway in name, but isn't one single highway until that gap is bridged. It's a bit of a trivial question really, because it depends on how the highways are named. It's sort of like with the naming of tributaries of a river - which one gets the name of the main river? A more realistic question would be what is the longest distance (measured as the crow flies) one can travel on an uninterrupted road. (Does it really matter whether that has been given the same name all of the way?) Does anyone know the answer to that? DirkvdM 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road less travelled?[edit]

Shouldn't the history of the highway be dealt with? Trekphiler 16:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New picture of a highway in Slovakia[edit]

Here is a picture from Slovakia - European Union which is free to use: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.paulis (talk • contribs) 23:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India[edit]

Why isn't there ANY mention of State Highways in India? India has more state highways that run longer than National Highways. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested split (Highway systems by country)[edit]

The list of highway systems by country is IMO too big to be left in the article. Not only is it a pain in the neck for probably a majority of readers, but it also attracts various IPs who tend to add unreferenced information in low-quality prose about the highways in their country or state, and the list by its placement diminishes the number of readers who read the bottom few sections and the number of improvements made to these sections. I don't see a way for this list to effectively fit into this article without introducing systemic bias, so I propose to split out the list per WP:SPLIT and leave a link to the list in "See also". Admiral Norton (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Hi Admiral) It is a large section, but I don't think IP editors tend to make comparatively poor contributions on this page. I think that this article has a lot of redundancies that if resolved could make the article shorter and more readable. I'm not too averse to splitting, but I think other cleanup can be done to improve readability in lieu of a split. For example, I moved a section up. Please, what is the nature of the systemic bias are you talking about?Synchronism (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I undid it. I don't think there is consensus yet, nor do I think there are any compelling reasons.`Synchronism (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's funny? Why do you think this is necessary? Let's discuss this, Synchronism (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That must be a bit of an exageration, the bit about everything. Why do you feel the split is necessary?Synchronism (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Just a quick reminder: please come to an agreement here before edit warring on the article. Cheers. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Julian, I am trying to discuss this, I think the point of finding an agreement is to avoid edit warring entirely, no?Synchronism (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Done here. Have it your way Synchronism. I truly don’t care about this at all. I guess if someone ho been on here since 4/8/2008 and has 10,909 Edits and is a rollbacker, Thinks there something. I will be keeping a eye on you Synchronism. Later.--Michael (Talk) 03:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's your choice (to not discuss), not my desired outcome. I wonder why, if you don't care, did you undo my reversion. I can be persuaded.Synchronism (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um. Michael, you wrote just above here that you don't care, yet you went ahead and split it again without explanation. I'm going to recombine these articles again, at least until there is consensus. If you think the articles should be split Michael, you should talk about it here, as Julian said, rather than edit warring in the mainspace. You see, the highway systems by country section is the meat of this article, removing that section reduces the article 'Highway' to little more than a dictionary definition with some world records. As I said above, there are other things that can be done to improve the article, splitting it in half as you've done, Michael, just creates two weaker pages.Synchronism (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through: Category:Articles to be split. There is a 2 year backlog. So, I was working on getting this backlog clean up.. That's all, No hard fillings.--Michael (Talk) 21:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This split request is only two months old though. Generally, if a discussion exists about a split it always precedes the split, and when there is a consensus the actions are taken out. Uncontroversial splits don't require discussions.Synchronism (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been a year since the requested split tag was added. Has any decision been reached yet? I suggest that we reach a decision in the next 7 days to either remove the tag or do the split. Any thoughts on that. Personally I support the split. PeterEastern (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I plan to split out Highway systems by country on the 9 April unless people object. I suggest that we then integrate the 'Road transport economics', 'Environmental aspects' and 'Rules of the road' sections from the Road article into this one on the grounds that those sections relate the public roads rather than to all roads. The roads article would then be primarily about the construction of roads and this one about the design and operation of public roads - see discussion on 'what is a highway' below for further discussion. However... lets agree the split of 'Highway systems by country' first. PeterEastern (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now completed the split. I suggest that we now concentrate of building this into a stronger article on the general subject of highways, rather than systems in particular countries. PeterEastern (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made the split, but you have not moved any text from the other articles to make this more complete like you said should be done. Please finish the split as you suggested it. I can support the split if it creates two better article, but not in its current condition in which there has been no improvement.Synchronism (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am currently consulting on talk:Road about moving the proposed content. The only initial comment was cautious and understood highway to only be for main road. It might be helpful if you commented on that page because I think it will create two much stronger and clearer article and I hope it is just a matter of discussing the issues. It did however feel appropriate the do this move first so that that article had space for more content. Either way I am committed to putting some serious effort into this article.PeterEastern (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Records[edit]

The picture of the European sign in this section, is it for decoration only? Has nothing to do with records. Moreover, though the sign does imply access restrictions, as the caption says, it means "Road with separated lanes and non-level crossings" (that is the official description, but it took me more than 15 years as a kid to see that this is a stylized picture of a 2-lane road with a viaduct...)Marc1966 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a highway? - unclear[edit]

I have a basic problem about this article, it does not unambiguously define what is and is not a "highway".

In the US the term "Highway" appears to be in common use to denote any main road. This article appears to start with this meaning. But what (in US English usage) is and is not a "Highway"?

In the UK, the word "highway" is rather old-fashioned. It was used before motorised vehicles as a term for roads between towns (see Highwayman), and is retained in the names of specific roads (for example The Highway). A more common term is "main road", but what is and is not a main road is personal opinion. "Public Highway" has a totally different legal meaning as any strip of land along which people have a legal right to travel, by vehicle, horse or on foot. A footpath across a field can be a public highway.

Given these differences "The United States has the largest network of highways" and "China's highway network .... total length of 3.573 million km." are meaningless statements, unless you explain what, in the context of the USA and China you are defining as a "highway". Do you mean any road the public can go on, including paths beside a paddy field leading from one village to another, or what? In Europe you have different classifications of road in each country, which are legally defined. UK Motorway = German Autobahn = French Autoroute, they all use the same signage and have equivalent laws and construction standards. and below that you have A Road, Bundesstrasse and Routes National; but each country has its own view on which roads to give a road number to ,and which to leave unclassified. You can quote specific total length for any of them. You can quote statistics for any of these categories, but they are not directly comparable.

This article needs a clean-up so it is clear and unambiguous what it is talking about. The other option, is to make it a short disambiguation page pointing to the many "Roads in xxx" articles. TiffaF (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty much any publicly owned route for public travel is technically a highway. As you can probably guess, it is no easy task to count the total lengths of all public roads and paths in a country for international comparisons. Taking the length of all numbered routes is an OK proxy for all highways. The CIA has some sort of discriminative system of determining the length of roads, both paved and unpaved for the precise purpose of comparison. According to the Fact Book, China has the third largest network of roads, and just a third of the China Daily's count.[2] So, yeah, it's all about sources. This article is about main roads, but it acknowledges the other more casual and more general uses of the word, which refer to something very difficult to quantify.Synchronism (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • People casually and correctly use the word wherever English is spoken to refer to nearby major roads.Synchronism (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question for Synchronism or an American: When Synchronism says 'Pretty much any publicly owned route for public travel is technically a highway' are you speaking using American English or British English? If in American English any road is a highway then we should say that more clearly in the lead and the article should reflect it. If this article is about the more major routes between towns then I propose to create an article Highway (British) to discuss the history and use of that term in the UK. PeterEastern (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both, the colloquial (dictionary) and legal definitions describe the same things in either. The term only differs between the dialects in terms of use. Except in reference to the Highway Agency or Code, the term isn't much used in everyday life in the UK. Some Americans do use the word quite frequently to refer to major nearby roads, which remains correct usage, however, they would not use it to describe an alley or a footpath, or even a residential street. But those are still highways. The article gives more weight to major roads, but its scope is not limited to them, which has some merits, mostly that by virtue of being major they are more notable and also more easily quantifiable, but also has some drawbacks, mostly that it reinforces a narrow but not necessarily incorrect use of the word. I think that the lead puts too much emphasis on definitions and terminology, and that an etymology section covering the history of the word would suit this article well.Synchronism (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Synchronism. I think that is a good scope for the article (ie all public roads, not just major ones). One thing - if you are American could you review the lead with regard to the bit about 'paths, allies etc' with the fact tag? - are those highways? Once we are in broad agreement about what the scope of the article is we can then develop the article; I do however think we need to resolve the 'split' issue about the long list of countries before adding more content. I do think it will be important to develop the highway article and the road article in parallel and with awareness of the scope of each to ensure that they are complementary. Personally I would like to see the road article focus on the construction issues, (of roads over time and for various purposes) - which is the core of the existing article. I would however suggest that any content that is specific to 'public roads' (highways) should be moved here. Personally I would like to see the following sections moved here from the road article: 'Road transport economics', 'Environmental aspects' and 'Rules of the road' PeterEastern (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a North American perspective, all roads that are meant for a motorized vehicle are known as highways, though commonly the term is only applied to those roads assumed by the provincial government as numbered highways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busiest[edit]

As a compromise, I'd be willing to include both. However, things need to be stated clearly. Israel 20 is measured over its entire length. 750,000 cars enter and exit the highway at some point along its length on a weekday. The 401 is measured at one point between two interchanges. ~430,000 (in 2006) pass this point on average on any given day, at any time in the year. This is very very different. IIRC, the 401 has well over a million and a half vehicles on it each day. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AADT seems to he the standard, so use that. It's much easier to count the number of vehicles using one stretch of roadway compared to the entire route. There are highways that are thousands of kilometers long and thus its unfare to compare it's volumes to a road that is, say 20km long. Haljackey (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To say a measurement of (approx.) 3 km is somehow more important or relevant than that of a 29 km stretch is incorrect. I could see if the 20 was hundreds of kilometers long, but it's 29 ! The stats would be very accurate. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Let's look at the facts;
  • Highway 20 in Israel carries 750k cars per day along its entire length. (approx 29 km)
  • The 401 carries 500k cars within a short stretch between two certain interchanges (approx 2-3km in length) in Toronto.
  • The 20 is shorter than the 401's entire length within the city of Toronto's boundaries. (40 km)
  • One stat is measured on a 3 km stretch, the other on a 29 km stretch
I'm sure if measured, the traffic on the 20 in between two specific interchanges is greater than that of the 401. I could see if the numbers were close, but the 250k more is a huge amount. The 20 is obviously a busier stretch of road. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention you two seem heavily biased towards the near advertisement of the 401. (no offense intended) The 401 had 3 images and mentioned 3 or 4 times in this article alone. Not to mention other roadway related articles. These article should be non-biased and have a neutral view. Seeing 3 out 6 images in the same article of the 401 is not neutral. I couldn't imagine going to a road related article and seeing 75% of the images featuring the I-95. The 20 in Israel is clearly busier, let's not let our persoanl interests get in the way here. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the images or the statement, I just know the facts. If 750,000 cars use a 29 km stretch of road at some point, the busiest section along that road likely sees half that amount (375,000). Two thirds would be pushing it, but in either case it is speculation and Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is the way traffic levels are measured generally. The two are not comparible. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight ... You are actually flat out saying that the 401 is the busiest highway in the world ? UrbanNerd (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on traditional and official traffic measuring, yes. According to the website of the maintaining department of the freeway or city government, maybe not. I'm saying both can be included, but they should be explained. 750k over the entire length is definitely not 750k at one point along the road, its the entire highway carrying that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Although I would bet the AADT on the 20's busiest stretch would probably exceed 500k, seeing how there is no AADT data at this time, I would also be willing to include both until said data becomes available. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to skyscrapercity. com/showpost.php?p=61549075&postcount=617 this post on Skyscrapercity, the 401 is the busiest in terms of AADT. (Those numbers come from stats from other posts in the thread.) However official sources say it's "North America's busiest highway" and "One of the world's busiest highways", not the busiest in the world. However no (reliable) sources that state it, or any other highway as the busiest in the world. In the thread it also dismisses the volume count for Highway 20. Link to the whole thread: skyscrapercity. com/showthread.php?t=1095539 Haljackey (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


         Unfortunately not a reliable source of information which we can use. Perhaps someone can contact the Israel transportation department to ask if they have any traffic counts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:3131265576 8b01cde423.jpg Deleted[edit]

An image used in this article, File:3131265576 8b01cde423.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Unfree Flickr license: http://flickr.com/photos/27863840@N00/3131265576 is licensed under cc-by-nc-nd-2.0

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SLEX2.jpg Deleted[edit]

An image used in this article, File:SLEX2.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Unfree Flickr license: http://flickr.com/photos/43468159@N00/178105789 is licensed under All Rights Reserved

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SLEX.jpg Deleted[edit]

An image used in this article, File:SLEX.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Unfree Flickr license: http://flickr.com/photos/23545908@N07/4111485131 is licensed under All Rights Reserved

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SCTEX.jpg Deleted[edit]

An image used in this article, File:SCTEX.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Unfree Flickr license: http://flickr.com/photos/20944648@N04/5033527318 is licensed under All Rights Reserved

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking "public"[edit]

Coming across this article I thought it would be prudent to wikilink the word "public" in the first sentence of the article, but then noticed there was already an edit war going on over that exact issue, apparently due to a joke made in xkcd (which I don't regularly follow). xkcd issues aside, is there a reason it shouldn't be linked? Nongendered (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needed. For one, it's runs afoul of the MOS provision to keep links from appearing side by side. Second, the word is one of those basic items that shouldn't be linked. Imzadi 1979 → 10:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustifyable amount of roads[edit]

According to the documentary "L'Homme et la mer[1]", 50% of all humans (and even higher percentages in Africa) live at less than 1 km of the sea. It can thus be argued that building so much cross-country raods (highways) is not justifyable, especially seeing the environmental damage these inflict.

Mention in article KVDP (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ L'Homme et la mer by Yann Arthus-Bertrand

Statistics Section[edit]

The stats section seems incorrect. For example, for widest freeway, many have learned this week that the G4 Beijing–Hong Kong–Macau Expressway has 50 lanes in places. Is there a reason that doesn't count? – Ilyanep (Talk) 23:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal requirements for foot paths across farm land[edit]

We are farmers in Nazeing Essex EN9 2LJ and need to Know our legal rights for use and development of one of our footpaths. Up to now the field and path is grassland, and farmed in a normal way, If we need to drain the field we drain across the path and then reinstate it back to grassland. There is now a planning proposal to make a hard path, tarmac with foundations plus install lighting along its length What is our legal right to keep it as it has been since time began, and what act covers footpaths?109.154.121.135 (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give legal opinions – it is, after all, an encyclopedia, written by users who (for the most part) are not lawyers. See the legal disclaimer for more information. - Evad37 [talk] 13:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Highway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Highway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Highway in California[edit]

There is some kind of Electric Highway in California https://newatlas.com/siemens-ehighway-california/52148/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.248 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highway&oldid=1194332172"