Talk:List of state highways in California/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Standardizing on a single style of notes?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently notes are located in three different places willy-nilly, mixed with "references" beneath the table, inside individual cells of the table with a smaller font, and a notes section in the lead. IMO there needs to be some discussion on how to handle the notes, and stick to a single standard. I'm willing to participate in the discussions.Dave (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre 1964 Comparison of California's Highways

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to request a comparison of CA's highways before the 1964 renumbering. Kevon kevono(talk) 17:38 aye, 10 April 2016

There should be an article about the renumbering itself, or that should be a subsection of the history section in an article on the state's highway system. See WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Michigan Plan for a description of how California's articles should be organized in the end, noting that depending on WP:SIZE-based concerns, the renumbering may need to be its own subarticle. Imzadi 1979 → 09:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As I suspected, there is: 1964 state highway renumbering (California). That's all we need, so I would oppose any additional article as proposed above. If that doesn't address your needs, then make proposals on how to expand and fix that article. Imzadi 1979 → 09:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to start a new article about the numbering. However, the existing article about the 1964 renumbering could be so much more than what it is today. I wouldn't care if it were completely re-written. For example, the article currently says: "The majority of sign routes—those marked for the public—kept their numbers; the main changes were to the legislative routes, which had their numbers changed to match the sign routes. A large number of formerly unsigned routes received sign numbers corresponding to their new legislative numbers". While most roadgeeks know exactly what those sentences mean, I suspect the average Wikipedia reader read that and said, "Huh?". (Not to ding the authors of those sentences, I myself have gone back over stuff I wrote 5 years ago and said, "what was I thinking when I wrote this?")

I think the best highway renumbering article I've read is Nevada's, List of State Routes in Nevada prior to 1976, it explains what happened, in clear English. I also like Utah's, but that's biased as I wrote parts of it, 1977 Utah state route renumbering. Dave (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Split Request

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Hello,

I would like to request a new article be created for Interstate Highways in California, as other states with fewer interstate highways have this and those articles seem to have enough info to talk about. TheWombatGuru (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about splitting it as well. My one concern is that legislatively, there is no difference between a state highway and an Interstate - @Imzadi1979: how do we handle that? --Rs chen 7754 17:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

California might not differentiate, but obviously FHWA and AASHTO do. Caltrans follows that differentiation, or else they wouldn't use three types of markers on their highways. What I'd suggest is creating a separate list that has a prose section that discusses the general history of how the state got its Interstates. That prose would also mention that in the Streets & Highways Code that there is no legal difference between I-15 and SR 15. Then it could point out that there is a section of highway that is signed as SR 15 that continues from the southern end of the freeway, why I-180 wasn't assigned, etc. Other prose would touch on how the numbers are assigned, what the signs look like, etc. The tables can then include in their notes the situations where I-X has an SR X related to it. Imzadi 1979 → 21:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The other issue is, what do we use for the designation date? The date it was added to the state highway system, or when it went through the 1964 state highway renumbering (California)? --Rs chen 7754 22:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Did California wait until 1964 to erect Interstate Highway signs? Michigan waited until 1959 to get confirmation of the initial numbering assignments before they bothered to renumber any then-existing freeways as Interstates. So I-75, I-94 and I-96 got their signs that year, and each of the others received them as their first sections opened, like I-69 did in 1967. Using that as an example, if California didn't have any I-80 signs until 1964, then that's when it was created/formed/designated. If I-80 was signed and appeared on maps before 1964, then you need an earlier date. If that numbering was unofficial until 1964, that's a detail to be covered in the prose history. Imzadi 1979 → 23:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, if the Interstates are split out, the U.S. Highways should be split into a similar list. In fact, there would be more prose to write to cover various aspects like how the 1964 renumbering meant the truncation of several designations out of the state. Imzadi 1979 → 18:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Guys, I'm creating a page after much reading from this talk page separating the US and Interstates from the state highways. Like to help? (Kevon kevono (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

Here it is. Kevon kevono (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I see the split was done, congrats on the hard work. I have no objection to dedicated lists for the US and interstate highways in California. However, the complete removal of them from this page creates an issue, related to Rschen's point above. Route 5, 210, 395, etc. exist very much in CA code as state routes but yet there is absolutely no mention of those routes on this page anymore. That makes this list incomplete and/or inaccurate. When I read the above discussion about creating separate list articles for the US and Interstate routes within CA, I assumed that they would remain on this list as well, as again, they are also state routes. For now I'll include a hatnote link to the other lists; however, I'd like to see this discussed. Dave (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Another part that is incomplete. I do know that there is a small portion of unsigned SR-10 that is not part of I-10 at the East Los Angeles Interchange, (It's even listed as an example at Unsigned highway. That is not reflected in this list, but probably should be. I know it exists, but do not have specifications for it, otherwise I'd do it myself. Anybody know the specifications for it? Dave (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are many Interstate/state routes in California. For instance, the section from US 101 to the western end of the Bay Bridge is defined as State Route 80, not Interstate 80, for reasons I don't know. But I think the reason it's not signed in this page is because it's very insignificant, as well as the I-10. Former state highways like SR 208 and unconstructed state highways like SR 102 also aren't part of this list. I know that SR 102 is unconstructed, but it's still legislatively a route. Kevon kevono (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)(What the hell is UTC?) 12:52 (PT)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of state highways in California. 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) 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)