Talk:M-17 (Michigan highway)/Archive 1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Imzadi1979 in topic Dubious
 | 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 |
USRD GA audit
This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Never sent to GAR. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Dubious
Replying to the tag from earlier, the sentence is correct. Looking at this, M-17 eastbound turns south from Washtenaw Avenue on Hamilton Street before turning east on Michigan Avenue. BUS US 12 runs along this section of Michigan Avenue as well to connect from Hamilton and Huron streets through Michigan Avenue. At Ecorse Road, M-17 turns south, separating from BUS US 12 in the process. Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in both GARs, M-17 eastbound runs along Michigan Ave starting at Hamilton, but it doesn't join US-12 eastbound until the intersection with Huron Street. US-12 westbound runs along Michigan Ave until Hamilton, but M-17 westbound leaves on Huron Street. So, from Hamilton to Huron Street, M-17 eastbound travels in the southern (eastbound) lanes, while US-12 westbound travels in the northern (westbound) lanes, with the lanes divided by median, as a boulevard. Based on my understanding of the term, that's not a concurrency. cmadler (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- A median doesn't negate a concurrency; it's still the same roadway. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, aren't most roads wrong-way concurrencies with themselves? That seems to contradict our "concurrency (road)" article. cmadler (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- A concurrency implies two designations following the same roadway. A wrong-way concurrency would be I-81 northbound following I-77 southbound. I have expanded that section of the paragraph and removed the {{dubious}} tag. Now, I think that might be over-detailed, but obviously you won't rest until you're satisfied, so I hope that fixed it properly. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, although I'm still confused by calling it a wrong-way concurrency. For example, is M-17, from US-23 to Cross Street and from Huron Street to US-12, wrong-way concurrent with itself because eastbound and westbound routes use the same roadway? cmadler (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not, because you only have one designation (M-17) not more than one. A boulevard/expressway/freeway is still one roadway, even if it has two carriageways. The RI-114 example of being concurrent with itself only, and dubiously, comes into play because both directions are supposedly routed down the same one-way street, not opposing sides of a single, two-way roadway. Imzadi 1979 → 20:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I think I understand. So a road being wrong-way concurrent with itself 1) requires both directions routed down the same one-way street, and 2) is dubious anyway, because concurrency is generally taken to require more than one designation? Thanks, for the explanation; I'm really not trying to be difficult about this, I'm just trying to understand it! It's clear to me that my reading of the "concurrency" article led me to a misunderstanding. cmadler (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pretty much, you got it. A concurrency is basically the phenomenon when two more more highway designations are routed on the same piece of pavement, or along the same pair of carriageways if a divided roadway. Now, the BUS US 12/M-17 situation there in Ypsilanti is a bit unique in that a section of a two-way road has different designations in either direction because of the interaction of one-way streets. Honestly, I hate when you have two highways intersecting at one-way couplets; the only situation worse is figuring out where BUS US 131, BL i-94, M-43 and the unsigned M-331 are at the intersection of of the Michigan/Kalamazoo east-west couplet with the Westnedge/Park north-south couplet. Of course in that case, having M-331 unsigned doesn't help at all, nor does having BUS US 131 make a direction change like both BUS US 12 and M-17 do in Ypsilanti. But these are the things we have to deal with to write these articles. Imzadi 1979 → 20:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I think I understand. So a road being wrong-way concurrent with itself 1) requires both directions routed down the same one-way street, and 2) is dubious anyway, because concurrency is generally taken to require more than one designation? Thanks, for the explanation; I'm really not trying to be difficult about this, I'm just trying to understand it! It's clear to me that my reading of the "concurrency" article led me to a misunderstanding. cmadler (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not, because you only have one designation (M-17) not more than one. A boulevard/expressway/freeway is still one roadway, even if it has two carriageways. The RI-114 example of being concurrent with itself only, and dubiously, comes into play because both directions are supposedly routed down the same one-way street, not opposing sides of a single, two-way roadway. Imzadi 1979 → 20:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, although I'm still confused by calling it a wrong-way concurrency. For example, is M-17, from US-23 to Cross Street and from Huron Street to US-12, wrong-way concurrent with itself because eastbound and westbound routes use the same roadway? cmadler (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- A concurrency implies two designations following the same roadway. A wrong-way concurrency would be I-81 northbound following I-77 southbound. I have expanded that section of the paragraph and removed the {{dubious}} tag. Now, I think that might be over-detailed, but obviously you won't rest until you're satisfied, so I hope that fixed it properly. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, aren't most roads wrong-way concurrencies with themselves? That seems to contradict our "concurrency (road)" article. cmadler (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- A median doesn't negate a concurrency; it's still the same roadway. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)