Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields task force

State highway markers and licensingEdit

It's generally assumed that all of the states' highway marker designs are in the public domain. However, the license tags are actually mostly incorrect in how these are tagged. In most cases, the Wikimedian that recreated the marker in digital form has "released" the file into the public domain, but that's not strictly correct because that person didn't have an ownership stake in the design to release it; the appropriate state would have the original ownership. Please help the project to research each state's specific status so we can update the licensing at commons:COM:USRD/L. Imzadi 1979  01:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

New request page at WP:HWYEdit

There is a new request page for the rest of the world's route markers (the more general term for shields) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Route markers. If you are willing to create graphics for other countries, please sign the participants list over there. Note that per discussion at WT:HWY, the USRD shield task force will remain separate. - Evad37 (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, no responses here and no activity on the HWY page in almost four weeks. There seems little point in having a request page and no-one to fulfill the requests. I'll trying pinging all the participants listed on this page, but if there's no positive response(s), it will probably end up shut down as a failed experiment. (Pings: @Master son, Holderca1, O, Sable232, and Kacie Jane:, @Jeff02, Rschen7754, Carpetmaster101, Mr. Matté, and Fredddie:, @Dalekusa, HighwayMaster, Michael J, Dough4872, and Citrusbowler:) - Evad37 [talk] 16:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

State Supplement, or?Edit

WSDOT's page on their MUTCD. --AdmrBoltz 16:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The main MUTCD links all go straight to the FHWA MUTCD PDF files on their site. There is one link below the rest that links to Washington's modifications to the national MUTCD, wherein they detail every revision their state statutes make to the National MUTCD text/figures. So, it looks like there is a state supplement, per se—it's individual modifications and not a complete document or separate book, so likely not easily referenced. -- LJ  22:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
They have a supplement listed here. Most of it is the standard MUTCD items, but there are state-specific items (WA shields, for example). I didn't see any notice about copyright, but I can reach out to WSDOT to see if their supplement is copy-written or not. --AdmrBoltz 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a sign fabrication manual, not an MUTCD supplement (although does include some signs mentioned in their supplement). But I suspect that's what you're looking for anyway... -- LJ  03:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@Admrboltz and Ljthefro: I don't know you two know about commons:COM:USRD/L, the Licensing Department of the USRD project on Commons. We're working over there to get state-specific licensing templates created for each state so that things can be re-tagged by bot/AWB and corrected. Imzadi 1979  21:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie: thoughts on if this is a "state supplement" / good enough to get us a PD tag for WA? Also in the sign specification manual M1-601 is the trailblazer shield for WA. --AdmrBoltz 20:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes. Aside from a few changes here and there, they use the federal MUTCD. The General link Washington MUTCD page posted above states "The 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), published by the Federal Highway Administration and approved by the Federal Highway Administrator as the national standard for all highways open to public travel, was duly adopted by the Washington state secretary of transportation." The changes in the supplemental aren't enough to substantially change the federal MUTCD, which is in the public domain. –Fredddie 21:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Wanna create the template, then I will retag all the shields? --AdmrBoltz 21:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

UDOT Sign ManualEdit

So... Compare     to the last two pages of the UDOT Sign Specification Manual... The two-digit shields are close but the three-digits are incorrect. I am not seeing a note on their website about public domain status though, as all their pages say (c) 2012 State of Utah... --AdmrBoltz 04:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • @Ljthefro and Imzadi1979: - Help maybe? --AdmrBoltz 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of MUTCD/state supplement image copyrights. Sorry I can't be of any major assistance... -- LJ  05:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fredddie: While I am not overly concerned on the (C) status, would you be able to create a new 3-digit template for UT, and maybe see if there are significant enough changes for the 1/2-digit shields to determine if we need to fix them, so that the bot can upload corrected shields? --AdmrBoltz 18:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I have been looking for this document for some time. I've seen some pictures of the new 3-digit shields on Flickr, and they are gorgeous. Well, as gorgeous as 5 square feet of aluminum can look. –Fredddie 19:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as the © goes, we're fine. The TOO is pretty high in the US. –Fredddie 19:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, © goes, if the state supplement incorporates the content of the federal MUTCD, then we have the page I-1 declaration of PD status for the markers. See the NY template at commons:COM:USRD/L. Imzadi 1979  21:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Utah MUTCD supplemental is PD. Page I-1. –Fredddie 23:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  Doing... new templates. That is, if Inkscape would stop crashing on me. –Fredddie 21:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  Fredddie 00:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Woot woot! Thanks. Request put in for the HRMB --AdmrBoltz 03:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Good luck with that. HRMB has been dormant for some time. –Fredddie 03:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Emailed the op. If needed, the source code is published, we may have to have someone take over... --AdmrBoltz 03:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I would caution against overwriting everything. Since the wide shields are new in the last few years, we're going to want square shields for anything route that ended before 2010. –Fredddie 05:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. Changed request. --AdmrBoltz 05:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I would use the "Utah X.svg" nomenclature rather than "Utah SR X.svg". In that case, we're only overwriting a handful of shields that aren't being used. –Fredddie 05:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Wanna change the request? I've edited it enough today :P --AdmrBoltz 05:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ohio marker variationsEdit

Over the past 15 years or so I have noted five distinct types of Ohio route marker.

  • Variant 1, the "classic" 1975 design
  • Variant 2, the current version on which it looks like the WP graphics are based
  • Variant 3, appeared mostly in the late 1990s; numbers are more compacted, and this version is recognizable by the black background stopping just short of the sign edges: three-digit; two-digit posted above another Variant 1
  • Variant 4, appeared in the 2000s; as shown, it's a smaller sign for three digits; two digits have a version as well, roughly the same size as the other 2ds but identifiable by the east and west state borders converging to the south rather than being parallel
  • Variant 5, very inaccurate, almost always used in detour signage

I have made sure to note that all of these are both found outside of cities (as noted at List of numbered highways in Ohio, cities maintain non-Interstate routes within their boundaries, so sometimes abominations show up, both gone now) and in multiple ODOT districts to assumedly eliminate the possibility of district-only origins. The first restriction may not be that important since through personal correspondence with ODOT workers it appears that ODOT manufactures markers then sends them to the cities.

My point to all this is that while I'm satisfied with the current WP graphics, I've been wondering if there are multiple statewide sources for marker design rather than just the Sign Design Manual, and if so whether this should be investigated. Mapsax (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, almost three months later I'm finding out that there was an odd near-coincidence. Obviously I only browse the USRD talk page now and then. Mapsax (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 220 ALT.Edit

I have asked before and I will ask again will some one please create this shield: To see the shield You can go on Google Street View to the intersection of Tennessee State Route 220 and Johnson Road in Atwood, Tennessee or US-70A and Norris Robinson Loop also in Atwood near West Carrol Jr/Sr High School on Google Street view. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm baffled by this request, since it was done in January.. –Fredddie 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fredddie: Oh then why is not showing up on the article and in junction lists?? --ACase0000 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops My Bad someone had put it in Wrong it the infobox and junction List. Sorry Fredddie. --ACase0000 (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the correct shape for circle sign x.svg?Edit

On Commons you can see three different shapes for four-digit routes. Virginia always uses the circle, while Kentucky uses both the circle and the "elongated circle". I would think that circle sign x.svg should be the actual circle, but this would require some moving around on Commons. --NE2 06:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(There should also be a template for four-digit, since it's unclear what font size to use. The three-digit template uses the oddball 143.) --NE2 06:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Below 1000, this was handled back in 2011. Circles are circles, ellipses are ellipses, elongated circles are elongated circles. Anything that isn't right, like what you linked, should be moved to the correct title. But yes, there should be a four-digit circle template. I'll do it when I get home from work later today. –Fredddie 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Circle sign 4-digit template.svg, which uses 10-inch numbers. As for the other two circle signs, they both should only be using 12-inch numbers. –Fredddie 22:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the Circle sign X files are now circles. –Fredddie 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have resized all of the circle templates to be 600px tall so the numbers are 300px. The 4-digit circle numbers are 250px. –Fredddie 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Time to delete and redirect elongated/ellipse 0-99?Edit

Currently there are three practically identical images for each 1-2 digit number:

Now that image redirects work, it would seem that the best course of action is to delete the latter two and redirect to the former. Does this sound reasonable?

(There's also File:Iowa 80.svg  , which has a slightly different border and should not be redirected if this is in fact how Iowa does shields.)

Note: if there's a good reason the elongated circle uses a different font, it should be renamed to something that better reflects this. --NE2 03:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the elongated circle shields use Series C because Kentucky does. Would be worth looking into to see if that is actually codified by KTC anywhere (or if it's just a tendency) and if any other states currently use elongated circles but don't use Series C (I believe Oklahoma specified elongated circles with D prior to 2006, but whether or not that's important enough to justify taking into account here is questionable). —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Whenever I look at the AARoads shield gallery, I see Series C circles more than I see Series D. So if we were to implement image redirects, I would !vote for Series C. With regards to Iowa, I switched everything over to the generic circles. The difference between the two is subtle, but I think the generic circles are slightly easier to read at 20 pixels. Iowa DOES use Series C 2-digit circles per the spec, so I'd like to maintain a set of Series C circles no matter what we decide. –Fredddie 19:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What about "circle sign xx Series C.svg" and "circle sign xx Series D.svg"? --NE2 02:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
While I can see the logic behind this, I am concerned that Commons wouldn't go for it; we've had problems with them not deleting redundant files before. --Rschen7754 05:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Were those completely identical files like circle* and ellipse*? --NE2 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
In the case I'm referring to, yes, just a different file format. We can always try, and see if they object... --Rschen7754 05:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
These are identical, even down to format. The only reason they exist is that image redirects weren't around (and our templates couldn't distinguish between two- and three-digit numbers). --NE2 06:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Rschen you're talking about them not deleting PNG files because of their silly superseded image policy. This is deleting, renaming, and creating redirects so everything works as intended, not just deleting because we have SVGs. –Fredddie 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how former shields workEdit

List of former primary state highways in Virginia (Salem District)#SR 102: SR 210 should probably be this style, and SR 102 might be cutout. In addition, how does the junction list work? Should old-style U.S. shields be used? Does anyone know for sure what types of shields were used in 1943 or 1955? Does it even matter, or is this just fanwankery for a handful of roadgeeks who want to see pretty pictures? --NE2 04:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It probably doesn't actually matter, other than it being slightly more accurate to use period shields. Former shields work by defining a separate type with a different shield (all other data can probably be set as an alias of the modern route type unless there is a reason it needs to be different). Convention is that these are named with the year the design was introduced, so if the modern type is "SR", the name of the type whose shield design was introduced in 1948 would be "SR 1948". —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Frankly I think the juxtaposition of modern state route shields with 1926-style U.S. shields (which apparently lasted into the 1950s, at least in most states) looks rather silly. Is this how it's supposed to be? --NE2 06:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If 1926 shields are being used for US routes, contemporary state route shields should be used as well. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
So I'll change back to modern US shields until someone determines exactly when Virginia switched SR shields and creates the old ones. --NE2 09:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────At what point did the shields become this style? I also uploaded a U.S. Highway template in the same style. –Fredddie 22:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. --NE2 22:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any practical difference between these?Edit

  

If not, I'm going to redirect the first to the second. --NE2 14:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

At 20px, no. At the top of an infobox, perhaps. It's basically the same reason I switched out state-name Interstate shields for neuters in most of the Jct modules but left them alone for infoboxes. –Fredddie 14:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind - I missed the puffy cheeks in Arkansas. --NE2 15:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)   Done

Tennessee State Route 73 ScenicEdit

Hi! I know have requested this before, but it turns out TN SR 73 Scenic is Dual (meaning it has both Primary and Secondary designations) For reference go Google Maps to Gatlinburg, TN, then on Street View at the Intersection of US 441 and Ski Mountain Road and the you will see what I am talking about. :) I hope I came to the right place. --ACase0000 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at it later today, but could you provide actual links to show exactly what you're talking about? Just because you tell us how to get there doesn't mean we'll see it when we look it up. –Fredddie 18:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the reassurance he's talking about. This trailblazer appears to confirm, given that SR 73 actually turns right to follow US 321. So I guess this means SR 73 Scenic is actually a loop with both ends at SR 73, but without signs through GSMNP.
About the shields: I'm not sure why, but {{infobox road small}} won't accept type=Dual the way {{infobox road}} does. --NE2 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@NE2: That is because it has TN-Scenic hasn't been created yet. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Also the Main line SR 73 is concurrent with US 321 from Cocke County, to Loudon County. --ACase0000 (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't get Louisiana shieldsEdit

@Mcdonaat: why was File:Louisiana 3.svg reverted to the old version? --NE2 21:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Because we were going to create the new ones at Louisiana <num> (2008).svg. We just haven't yet. –Fredddie 22:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not move the old ones to (pre-2008)? --NE2 23:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Why was I tagged in this? I just got my Internet back up and running, so the only modifications I've done in the past 6 months have been related to the parish routes signed along Interstates (basically, what we would link to for Interstate exit lists), which are now on one page. I've left the state shields alone. 'Mcdonaat 03:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
LTNS Mcdonaat. Is there a list of LA highways that survived the great purge? We should probably rectify the shields sooner than later. –Fredddie 03:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Since the 'great purge' occurred after many shields were changed, we should change all the shields. --NE2 06:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I pinged you because you reverted the shield... --NE2 06:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Any updates on when the switch over to the new black/white shields will take place? —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 17:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Black and white signs are going up now, but I believe it's as the green shields age out. I cleaned up the category so we can upload shields to the specific 1-500 category. –Fredddie 21:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the naming format we're using for the B/W shields? You said above that it's going to be File:Louisiana <num> (2008).svg but there's a mixture of formats in the categories now. I ask because I can start to help out by extracting some of the shields (though only the ones with the all Type B-font) I've made for the LA maps I've previously done. —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 00:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I will look for a tool that will let us move files en masse, but the 2008 scheme seems like the smart thing to do. It would be far to big of a pain in the ass to manually move all the green shields to File:Louisiana <num> (1990).svg, as was suggested above. –Fredddie 00:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a tool, but it will create redirects, which is not optimal. As such, we'll use the 2008 scheme. Let me know if you find some green shields in the b/w categories and vice versa. –Fredddie 01:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible new ND shieldEdit

North Dakota appears to be in the early stages of transitioning to a new shield design. Page 75 of [1] has specs. No official announcement, specs apparently just started appearing in new contracts last month. Might be prudent to go ahead and make some graphics but hold off on inserting them into articlespace until we know for sure what's going on. Thanks to J.N. Winkler on AARoads for the catch, otherwise we wouldn't have known until someone stumbled across one in the field. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We have templates already, courtesy of Fredddie at commons:Category:2015 North Dakota Highway shields. Given the comments on AARoads, it's probably not until this coming spring that we'd expect to see any of these new markers in the field given the lead times involved since these are only out for bids now. 13:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

County bannered routes in templatesEdit

Why are County bannered routes acceptable for junction templates in New Jersey road articles, but not on New York ones? I'm not trying to write any articles on County alternate, business, or truck routes, of course, but it would be nice to know you can add templates with County bannered routes when you need them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about being able to type, for instance, {{Jct|state=NJ|CR-Spur|501}} but not {{Jct|state=NY|CR-Spur|1|county1=Rockland}}? –Fredddie 00:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Something like that, but I was leaning more towards {{Jct|state=NY|CR-Truck|80|county1=Suffolk}}. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: I believe the purpose behind my friend's question was to ascertain that you desire {{jct}} to include the option for special routes of county routes to work, and if that's the case, and we don't really care which specific roads, then it's a matter of adding the various special route subtypes into the appropriate Lua module for New York. By way of explanation, each state has a Lua module that defines each type of roadway along with how to construct the links, which graphics to use and what abbreviations are appropriate. Unless that module is updated, {{jct}} doesn't know that New York has special routes of county routes. In any event, it should not be a graphics issue. Imzadi 1979  14:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I realized that, and I was hoping the subtypes would work throughout the state. I just posted my example so that everyone knew what I intended to use it for. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Types and subtypes are defined by state. Do we have a fairly complete list of which subtypes are needed? I'd like to do this in one set of edits if I could, DanTD. Imzadi 1979  16:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The only ones I know of are with County Road 80 off of Montauk Highway. If I knew of any other subtypes that were needed, I welcome the updates. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────You should now be in business:
 
  CR 80 Truck
Imzadi 1979  17:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I hope I can find others out there. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

National Historic Trail shileds; Copyvios or not?Edit

I've been wondering about the use of shields like these being added to the junction templates. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

 
Would something like this be a copyright violation, or could we add Pony Express Trail, Santa Fe Trail, etc. to any junction lists?

Maine vs. MassachusettsEdit

This may be too trivial to do anything about, but it seems that Maine's state shield is slightly different than Massachusetts', which is a stand-in for Maine's currently. Granted, most renderings would be too small to notice any significant difference, but the difference seems to be there in the field: Maine's looks more compact and rectangular than Massachusetts'. Compare: ME MA It's just been bugging me on and off, and I think that this would be in the same vein as the particular care given to, for example, fonts. Probably not worth the time investment, though. Would there be any context where purists might object to the status quo? Mapsax (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Your eyes have not deceived you. The border around the shields and the corner radii are different per each state's specs. Allow me to demonstrate:
It's subtle, but there is a difference. But you've asked the right question, is it worth our time? I don't have the answer to that. –Fredddie 00:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I would be fine with replaced markers only at Numbered highways in the United States, Maine State Highway System, the "state highway system" infobox in List of state routes in Maine, and the "Maine state symbols" infobox at Maine; by my count, that's only five graphics to be made (SR 11 appears on all four). Mapsax (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Making them all really is a non-issue. We can submit a request at commons:User:Highway Route Marker Bot and have them all made with little effort. It will probably take longer to compile the list needed and to get the bot set up than it will for the bot to make them. –Fredddie 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. You beat me to it and your request is more detailed than mine would have been anyway. Mapsax (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
More shields were made than I requested, so it's all good. I should have all the backend stuff switched over to the Maine files. There may be some stragglers out there that need to be replaced manually. –Fredddie 19:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject U.S. Roads/Shields task force".