Talk:Transport in the Netherlands

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

Bikes[edit]

Bikes should be mentioned. The Netherlands have an extreme high bike-density, compared to other countries. Maybe add some general information about the use of transportation?

Wikipedia is entirely user-maintained. If you have information about these subejects, please add it! Be bold in updating pages! Tuf-Kat 08:58, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Station names[edit]

It is the normal practice in Europe, when discussing rail connections, to call railway stations by their local names, i.e. Den Haag Centraal (not "The Hague Central"). I therefore propose to make the corresponding amendments. Also, I am unaware -- though I stand to be corrected -- that the Netherlands ever practised transportation (the deportation of felons to penal colonies). In any case, I doubt that the practice has much to do with today's systems of Transport in the Netherlands. -- Picapica 18:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • local names: fine with me.
  • transportation: I have no strong preference, an advantage of transport is that it is shorter; note that Wikipedia is international, versions of English may slightly vary.
Patrick 22:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick: first of all, sorry that I "mis-corrected" the reference to IC and S stations in the Railway stations in the Netherlands article. I should have looked at the external link example. In partial self-defence, I was confused by the use of the word "schedule" when what was being referred to was "departure sheets". To me, "schedule" (if used in a railway context at all: it suggests air transport not rail) refers to an individual train's timings not to the whole timetable for a station, line, or network.

This just serves, however, to highlight the problem (versions of English may slightly vary): the railway/railroad vocabularies of European and American English do not vary just slightly but very markedly (they probably vary more in the railway field than in any other area of technical language). I would tend to favour a similar strategy to that employed where the question of US English v "Commonwealth" English spellings is concerned: namely, use one or the other, but be consistent within any one article. This means that if we already have "railway" (not "railroad"), "railway station" (not "train station"), "goods wagon" (not "freight car") etc., then we should also have "transport" (not "transportation"), "timetables" and not "schedules", etc. -- Picapica 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Population density[edit]

The article claims: "The country has one of the highest population densities in the world [..]". This is something the Dutch like to believe, but the Netherlands barely make the top 30 when it comes to population density: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density so it would be better to mark it as "the country is densely populated", or something of the sort. SeverityOne (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries and territories that are more densely populated than the Netherlands, are city states and such. With a population density of 406 people per km² - 497 if water is excluded - the Netherlands really is a very densely populated country for its size. Only Bangladesh, South Korea and Taiwan have both a larger population and a higher population density.--84.106.90.249 (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-assessed later sections need more work to go to B[edit]

Looks good, however, going from C to B is a rather big deal. As it is now I have serious problems with the sections:
"Merchant marine" -- No sources / no readable prose. This needs expansion. (or alternative needs to be removed altogether). Also unclear whether this includes river trade a major Dutch transport sectors.
"Pipelines" -- Again no source and no prose. Either expand. The dense gas pipelines to almost every home is interesting e.g. Alternatively remove.
"Government" again no sources. Additionally, this is not completely true as provincial wegen are under provices and local street under municipality. So this sections needs considerable expansion.
"Economics" somewhat cryptic. Is this about truck transport or also about train goods transport, shipping and air cargo? Or does it also include the economics of passengers traffic. This needs serious expansion and clarification.
With these sections this problematic I am afraid I cannot yet promote to B level. Arnoutf (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Introduction[edit]

The introduction text is almost identical to the 'road transport' text. I would suggest summarizing it more in the introduction. Sdk16420 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Railtransport: 2015[edit]

an edit has been made on dec 14th of 2014 regarding the train timetables for 2015. The user wrote that during daytime every station would not be served by at least one train an hour. This misconception probably comes from the press release made by the NS on the 2015 timetables. However, this statement only applies to the stations served by the NS. On lines served by other operators there are sometimes less trains. Examples of these stations are Stavoren (Arriva), Eygelshoven Markt (DB) and Eijsden (NMBS). SeraveeNL (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

clarification please...[edit]

The Inland waters & shipping section currently says: "Punting and canal boats are very common, and are used by a lot of tourists." Neither Punting or canal boats are mentioned elsewhere in the article. Both wikilinks are to disambiguation pages. Punting could refer to an English kind of pleasure craft, but, since it is unrefernced, why not mention canoes and kayaks? Canal boat's most usual definition is a kind older style of commercial barge. I suggest that if this passage is not clarified, and referenced, it should be excised. Geo Swan (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transport in the Netherlands. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

URL for reference 8 needs to be updated to http://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/dp201215.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.27.162 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transport_in_the_Netherlands&oldid=1204535493"