|WikiProject Norway||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Sweden||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|A fact from Svinesund Bridge appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 26 January 2006. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/January.||
Any details on how much it costed ? And who's property is it ? A co-venture of both government ? Is there a toll on it ? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonhumm (talk • contribs) 09:27, 26 January 2006
- All good questions. I was wondering that myself, Structurae.de didn't have info on them. Someone who can read norse languages may be able to answer since there's a link to a project specific site given in the article links link It has some english PDFs that might shed light too. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- PS, this PDF has good info. I'll add it to the article when I get a chance (or someone else will!) but for now here is some text: (cannot be added as is, needs refactoring, upshot is, there are tolls, it is a joint venture, total cost SEK 1.4B)
Totally new road and magnificent bridge across the water The Svinesund Link starts in Nordby in Sweden, crosses the Ide Fiord and ends in Svingenskogen in Norway, a total distance of seven kilometres. The new E6 will be built to motorway standard and will take a new route west of the current E6. The Norwegian border is also the EU border and customs stations will be built on both sides. The project is being financed by road tolls and there will be payment stations on the old and new bridges. Inauguration with huge symbolic value Work began in August 2002 and three years later – 100 years after the dissolution of the union – this permanent, safe link between the countries will be opened. The new Svinesund Bridge – the old one in the background DATA SVINESUND LINK Nordby-Norwegian border 2 km Interchange Nordby Contractor SNRA Production New Svinesund Bridge 704 m Contractor Bilfinger Berger AS Norwegian border-Svingenskogen 4.3 km Interchanges Langkas, Svingenskogen Contractor Veidekke ASA Total cost SEK 1,400 million The entire project will be financed by road tolls
commented out in the main article so it doesn't get lost:
I tried to find the bridge in the images/maps but did not have total success.... The region is here: http://maps.google.com/?ll=59.044793,11.252747&spn=1.051115,2.175293 I suspect the bridge is there SOMEWHERE but couldn't find it closer than that... here is a GUESS, there's a bridge visible, only one I could spot. Probably the old bridge though! http://maps.google.com/?ll=59.097378,11.265707&spn=0.032796,0.067978&t=k ... Google coverage is better for NA than europe, unf, and is often a few years out of date. At that scale they don't have maps with roads on them. Perhaps a euro source could confirm this. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the old bridge. Google's satellite images are too old to show the new bridge, but it's position is: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=59.094497,11.2518&spn=0.015341,0.043516&t=k --Anlo 15:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- That image center fits the map I found (and added to the links) too... makes sense. See what you think of how I moved the image over to the left and up... with subheadings the article's looking good. In fact it may not need the stub tags any more... it's got a lot of info now. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c
- The layout is really nice now, thanks. --Anlo 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Svinesund or Ide Fjord?
Is the body of water crossed the first name, the second name, or both, depending on language? There appears to be some confusion on that point... the map ref I found shows the label "Ide Fjorrden" and seems to indicate a small town just to the S of the bridge named Svinesund. I changed the article around to suggest it's both but that's guesswork, not sourced. Someone native to Norway or Sweden would know better.
Also, User:Anlo, HOW did you get those spectacular pictures? Were you in a small plane? They're just absolutely gorgeous! (and you can see one of the cars on the bridge appears to be a classic convertible of some sort in one of the shots!) ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, this article sure got a lot of attention after being featured in the Did you know-section of the main page. Svinesund is a sound in the Ide fjord, I've clarified that in the article now ("sund" is Swedish (and Norwegian?) for "sound").
- I found the pictures in the Swedish Road Administration's ("Vägverket") image bank, where I also found the picture for the Uddevalla Bridge article. They were shot from a plane or a helicopter. --Anlo 13:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I see the images got tagged as possibly unfree so you may want to try to work with whoever tagged them to clarify the license status, they're great images and it would be a shame to lose them. See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images. It sounds like some clarification (maybe a different tag? there are a lot of them) might be in order because I gather the agency is OK with them being republished? ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help managing the updates, I'm rather new at this as you might have understood. According the the copyright information at the image bank, the pictures are free to publish but not for "campaigns". But I'm not really sure which copyright category I should select, any idea? --Anlo 15:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was looking at all the licenses and I honestly don't know what one to use. People who fork Wikipedia may do so for parody or propaganda so images used here have to be available for any use, even bad uses like changing them into other things. That is why the GFDL is a good license for images if you can get it. This agency perhaps doesn't want that (I could not find image license text in english on the site) so maybe they can't be used here. I think maybe you should ask for advice in the discussion of the image in Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images... tell people in greater detail what the site says about usage and ask what tag is the right one. Other than that I don't know. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Based on what was said at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images, it looks like the permission situation got worse, not better, after the road authorities were asked for clarification/permission. So some of those images may need to be linked in rather than embedded, which is too bad because the article will not look nearly as good without them. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The bridge was categorised under Bridges in Norway, via Category:Bridges in Østfold. Bridges that link the USA to Canada aren't listed under their national cat just because they are international bridges; they remain only in their State category. So I think, analagously, it's justifiable to leave it under Category:Bridges in Østfold alone. TheGrappler 18:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nod. I can see that view. But it IS half in one country and half in another. Many US/Canada bridges are in both cats I think (michigan and ontario for example...) Maybe talk about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges? ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just realised how badly I expressed myself! What I meant was, it should be sufficient to leave it in Category:Bridges in Østfold (a subcat of Category:Bridges in Norway) and (of course!) Category:Bridges in Sweden. There actually isn't a single bridge (at the moment I am writing) in Category:Bridges in the United States - they are all subcategorised by State (like Australian bridges are), and analagously, as Norwegian and English bridges are subcategorised by county. Please look at Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, Whirlpool Rapids Bridge and Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls), all of which straddle the U.S.-Canadian border. They are categorised under Category:Bridges in Canada and Category:Bridges in New York. The analagous situation here would be to categorise Svinesund Bridge under Category:Bridges in Sweden and Category:Bridges in Østfold (the Norwegian county). Would that be sensible? TheGrappler 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)