User talk:Viator/archive1604

M10 (RoI)

Very clearly isn't part of the M9, but rather a motorway section of the N10.

where's the spur? writes:

N9

Newbridge, County Kildare — Waterford

Between its junction with M7 at Greatconnell in the county of Kildare and its junction with N25 at Granny in the county of Kilkenny via HILLSBOROUGH, SUNNYHILL, KNOCKBOUNCE, YELLOWBOGCOMMON, BARONSLAND, CROOKSTOWN LOWER, MULLAMAST, HALLAHOISE and PRUMPELSTOWN LOWER in the county of Kildare: JOHNSTOWN, RATHCROGUE, CLOGHRISTICK, SESKIN LOWER and MOANMORE in the county of Carlow: JORDANSTOWN, BLANCHVILLESPARK, CLIFDEN, KILREE, DANESFORT, STONECARTHY WEST, KNOCKTOPHER COMMONS, KNOCKMOYLAN, GARRANDARRAGH and DUNKITT all in the county of Kilkenny.

capital letters in description column identifies a motorway writes:

N10

Clifden — Kilkenny — Danesfort, County Kilkenny

Between its junction with M9 at CLIFDEN and its junction with M9 at Danesfort via Templemartin, Blanchfieldsland, Middleknock, Kilkenny Ring Road, Smithsland South and Outrath all in the county of Kilkenny.

begins at motorway, but doesn't have capitals as not part of this road writes:

N33

Charleville — Ardee, County Louth

Between its junction with M1 at Charleville and its junction with N2 at Glebe in the town of Ardee via Richardstown, Stickillin, Cappocksgreen; and Fairgreen in the town of Ardee all in the county of Louth.

here's what a spur looks like on paper writes:

N18

An Baile Chláir — Oranmore, County Galway — Limerick

Between its junction with N17 at An Baile Chláir in the county of Galway and its junction with M20 at Rossbrien in the county of Limerick via Crosaire an Chairn Mhóir, Glennascaul,Carrowmoneash, Oranbeg, Parkroe, Clarinbridge, Kilcolgan, Ardrahan, Kiltartan, GLENBRACK, BALLYBAUN and RATHWILLADOON in the county of Galway: DERRYGARRIFF, CAHERAPHUCA, DRUMQUIN, BAREFIELD (and including the link road to R458) KNOCKNANEAN (and including the link road to R352), KILBRECKAN, LATOON SOUTH, CARRIGORAN, SMITHSTOWN, Ballycasey More, Clonmoney West, Bunratty Bypass, Laghile and Cratloemoyle in the county of Clare: Coonagh West (and including link road to R527 at Clonmacken) in the city of Limerick; Shannon Tunnel and Ballykeeffe in the county of Limerick: and Ballinacurra in the city of Limerick.

So to sum up - spurs are defined in brackets, no brackets on the N9 description at all, let alone at Clifden; capitals signify motorways, and not mere junctions with them. The N10 has capitals in it's description (and so does the N21) therefore it is a motorway section of M10. What's wrong with my logic here, and why the deletion, rather than 'disputed' tags and a discussion? Your assertion after all, makes no sense when confronted with the evidence. Si404 (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (BST)

I did have my reasons, Simon! -- chiefly this:

http://www.nra.ie/policy-publications/nra-maps/file-17000-en.pdf M9 - Jn 8 - Kilkenny (although I admit that that doesn't of itself quite resolve the matter)

but I've restored the page to allow for discussion -- even though we're not permitted a discussion page :( . I have to go out now, but will reply in more detail as soon as I can. -- Viator (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2014 (BST)

Thanks for reverting it. I'm not sure that junction diagram resolves the matter. I've put the M10 (Republic of Ireland) and M21 (Republic of Ireland) in Category:Disputed numbers and explained the controversy. Si404 (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2014 (BST)estotrd

M4 Former Junctions

Very late to notice this, 4 years on, but why did you put all the M4's former junctions at the end of the list? It looks less neat than having them in 'order', IMHO. M5lenzar (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2015 (BST)

Probably because I thought that

1. it looked neater that way – but chacun à son goût and I don't want to treat the question as a casus belli [That's enough foreign for now—Ed.] and
2. it wasn't clear to the casual reader that those greyed-out junctions were, in fact, no more.

However, I admit I failed to find a way at the time of showing that fact myself – so I've now restored your favoured order to the list and added an explanatory note. What do you think? -- Viator (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2015 (BST)

Maptrace

Hi Kevin,

Have you forgotten about the Maptrace template that solves the problems with your manual OSM text entry by turning it into a proper tag that adds articles to a maintenance category and is dead easy for everyone else to find and work? Steven (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2016 (GMT)

Hi, Steven.

No, I haven't forgotten about it, because I never knew about it! (Sorry: that was clearly a very long episode of The Archers — I never did get back to your talk page to finish the discussion about metric Ceredigion.)

I'm sorry too that you feel that debating questions relevant to the content and structure of the Wiki is time wasted. Perhaps the old joke paradigm applies: "I am firm, you are stubborn, he is pig-headed"... :)

I can see your point about "proper tagging" and don't oppose the principle of it all. However, I do have reservations about the wording. (Red rag to a bull, I know, but bear with me for a moment.)

At present this reads: The OpenStreetMap trace held on the SABRE Wiki for this road requires updating. This may involve updating OSM itself and/or uploading a replacement route trace.

1) Wherever I've appended the observation A corrected Open Street Map trace exists for this route, needs uploading to the Wiki that means that OSM already has been updated (because I've done the updating myself). It was intended to be a "health warning" for users (= "the trace we're currently showing is not quite right"), not a veiled instruction — though I admit it could be read as such; it would probably have been better if I had worded it as "awaits" rather than "needs" uploading.

2) You may not have noticed that I've used a different observation — namely, An Open Street Map trace exists for this route, needs uploading to the Wiki — for those other and distinct cases in which OSM is correct (I've checked it, and amended it if necessary) but no corresponding trace has ever been uploaded to the Wiki.

I would therefore prefer there to be two "proper" tags, with wording something like An updated OpenStreetMap trace for this route awaits uploading to the SABRE Wiki and An OpenStreetMap trace for this route awaits uploading to the SABRE Wiki.

Finally (for now), re things being dead easy for everyone else to find and work, that's a very commendable principle, but let's not forget that in this particular matter there is only one person AFAIK who knows how to "work" it.

Best regards -- Viator (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2016 (GMT)

Well, the wording was a "holding" wording anyway - I fully expected you to find a better way of phrasing it!

We can certainly do two different templates - I'm not sure that's necessarily the right way to go though, as basically the one can be translated as "do something somewhere else", rather than a simple "something needs to happen here". The problem is that OSM is a moving target, and whilst you might have made sure it's right on OSM, there's nothing to say that it doesn't get broken by someone else between then and the upload time. Steven (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2016 (GMT)

Thanks for the feedback. Now that I've slept on it, my thoughts on the question this morning are:

• Let's go with two templates, because scenario 1 (the maptrace currently shown is inaccurate) needs a text warning to the user, whereas scenario 2 (no maptrace has yet been uploaded) falls into the BO sub-category (statement of the bleedin' obvious :-)), so no in-article text is needed there -- but it would still be very useful to have a template making a list of such instances for future reference.
• I appreciate what you say about OSM as a moving target; on the other hand, the SABRE Wiki -- because it isn't dynamically updated (if that's the right term) in regard to the traces (uploads happen less frequently than once every two years?) -- is pretty much unaffected by that consideration (i.e. if it's wrong now it's going to remain wrong -- and in the same way -- until the next upload; if it's right now, there's no guarantee someone won't "mis-correct" the OSM later, but since that applies to the 99% of traces we believe to be currently correct it's too big an elephant to be worrying about for now).
• I'll "action" this later today if I get the chance (today is one of those days I may get called out at any time, so am only doing minor Wikiworks for now). -- 10:16, 6 January 2016 (GMT)

as Hey, Kevin, I think I've finally got to the bottom of this blasted map tracing script which has driven me up the wall every time I've tried to run it. Everything marked as "needs update" in Ireland should now be correct, can you check? If that works, I'll do Great Britain next. Ritchie333 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2016 (BST)

Many thanks, Ritchie. I saw your note rather late, so will do a full check in the morning -- but, of the random sample I've taken a quick look at so far, everything now seems to be in order, with these exceptions:

• R705: at some point someone must have added the R705 reference to the upstream Barrow Way riverside footpath (!) in OSM. I've removed that tag now, but I guess that the correction won't show up until the next "update run"?
• N5: the old route through Ballaghaderreen (now the L1244) is still showing up as the N5. It's correct in OSM, however, so perhaps that's "one that got away" in the update?

Will -- as I say -- do a thorough check tomorrow, and remove all the "needs uploading" tags as necessary. Best regards -- Viator (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2016 (BST)

UPDATE—Have now been through all the relevant road pages, and the result is "problem solved" for nearly all of them -- though a few mystery exceptions do remain. When you get time, could you take a look at the R585, R590, R603, R608, R610, R659, R709, R860, R895, and R912? These are all pages where the trace doesn't match what OSM shows.

You can disregard what I wrote above about the N5 at Ballaghaderreen: clearing my cache seems to have got rid of the "false trace" there. An oddity that does remain (only really apparent in a very detailed view, though, so you might think it's not worth bothering about) is that part of the N5 trace (relating to the turn lanes) at the junction with the R371 at Scramoge, east of Strokestown, continues to be rendered in black. -- Viator (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2016 (BST)

R895 and R912 seem to be okay for me; the others have bits missing, which may be a problem with the script my end that only affects a few roads. I'll have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2016 (BST)

Thanks, Ritchie. Regarding those two, it's probably just me being over-picky again, but with the R895 one of the two roundabouts doesn't show up, while with the R912 it's the bridge between the two ends of the dumbbell that's missing. Forgot to mention earlier, by the way, that the R849 trace appears to be missing altogether. -- Viator (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2016 (BST)

N4 toll bar roundabout

Hello, the deletion of the page has redlinked the entry in the Navbox|cat=N4 Junctions - I don't know how to fix this and make it redirect to the correct place so I thought I'd tell you about it instead :) C2r (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2016 (BST)

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I thought, wrongly, that I'd covered all the bases, but the problem arose, I think, because not only was the name Toll Bar wrong in itself, but we previously had a page named "Toll Bar Roundabout , Ireland" (with a superfluous space before the comma) as well as one for "Toll Bar Roundabout, Ireland". I believe it's all fixed now, but please let me know if I've let anything else in under the radar! -- Viator (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2016 (BST)

Looks great now - I've not seen anything else (obvious) broken! C2r (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2016 (BST)

Talk pages (and wailing and gnashing of teeth thereof)

While I'm here, I do recall you've been quite vocal about the complete absence of talk pages, full stop, on the wiki, that give an error message when you try and access one directly. The reason for this is I started writing a feature that would transparently bounce you onto the forums and allow you to compose your discussion there, which would be automatically integrated into the wiki page. That means people who wanted to use the "wiki-way" to discuss could, the ones who wanted to use the forums, could do that. Of course, it never worked, and I can't see it doing so any time soon. You make a legitimate argument that talk pages with old discussions on them can no longer be accessed, so I've switched them back on for the moment to see if I can migrate them over to the forums. See Talk:A374, for example. Ritchie333 (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2016 (BST)

Thanks. As it happens, the example page you cite demonstrates one of the most important features of the usefulness (IMHO!) of talk pages: as a shared "parking-place" for contributors to leave a record of their to-do and would-like-to-do plans in respect of the page's topic. In this case, I see I had a plan up my sleeve which I've, in fact, done nothing about for three years. Not that that's unusual for me -- but it was the inaccessibility of that talk page which helped me to forget all about it :-) -- Viator (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2016 (BST)

Highway Authority names

Hi Kevin, Why are you removing the slightly longer forms of the Highway Authorities that I put in deliberately? It's not as if they're incorrect, and it can help ensure that the like-named place and authority are obviously not the same. Steven (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2016 (BST)

Well, I thought it was an inconsistency given the de facto Sabre WIKI convention currently being applied to the vast majority of highway authorities in GB.

I'm not actually against the use of the full name (or abbreviated full name) of the authorities -- I think it's a pity, in fact, that we seem to have gone for the likes of "Warwickshire Council" rather than "Warwickshire County Council" in naming articles, there being no such body as Warwickshire Council. But I think if we're going to go down the "Dudley MBC" road, then we ought to do the same for every HA. (I guess I was taking the easier way out by seeking to eliminate the inconsistency by following the precedent of the majority of cases!)

I sort of take your point about "ensur[ing] that the like-named place and authority are obviously not the same" -- although I do feel that the true obviousness resides (or should reside) in the fact that "a place is not an authority is not a place".

I'm quite prepared, however, to resile from the practice you detected -- one of the best ways of testing the waters in regard to doing something controversial-ish in a WIKI is to go ahead, make the change, and wait to see if anyone squeals (always being prepared to reconsider if they do!); everything in a WIKI is reversible. But I'd want to use CC, MBC, etc. throughout. (Need to establish a full list for the dog's breakfast that is English local government "structure"!)

What are your thoughts? -- Viator (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2016 (BST)

TBH, I was kinda fishing for thoughts on it when I did it, and no-one bit! I've tended to use "MBC" simply because it's short, but then I've been inconsistent with "City Council"/ "County Council" and "CC", again to fish around for opinions. I do know the reason that the pages are all "XYZ Council", and that's simply to make the page locations easier, as local government bodies can rename themselves as they see fit - though they don't tend to change the placename part ("Blackburn" to "Blackburn with Darwen" being a bit of an outlier). They do have nasty habits of coming up with silliness like "City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council" or something silly - indeed, Wolverhampton City Council seem to be going through a slightly odd and inconsistent rebrand to "City of Wolverhampton" right now. Having XYZ Council insulates us from that, and means people don't actually have to know the correct full form. Steven (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2016 (BST)

I removed a few CCs and MBCs only to have them put back again without comment so I figured on that basis that I was in the wrong. I still don't think it's necessary, however. If we take this to its logical conclusion we'd end up with placed like Bedford Borough Council, City of Cardiff Council, Cheshire East Council, Coventry City Council and Vale of Glamorgan Council - in England and Wales there's no particular logic to it (how come it's not Cheshire East BC or Vale of Glamorgan CBC?). I appreciate it's largely about branding but it's just giving us an extra layer of confusion. Vlad (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2016 (BST)

OK, that's a two to one opinion on this after a few days, so it's the shortest possible form in future! Steven (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2016 (BST)

Thanks, Steven. I have been thinking about the question BTW; it's just that my usual method of considering loads of different examples does take time, or -- as others might put it -- I'm very slow to make my mind up... :-) -- Viator (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2016 (BST)

R Roads

I notice we have National Roads (Republic of Ireland) and Local Roads (Republic of Ireland), but not Regional Roads (Republic of Ireland). I would write something, but I am sure the information I would write about is on another page somewhere. Would you know where? Ritchie333 (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2016 (BST)

It's "on the stocks", Ritchie (but thanks for the nudge). Just another of my long-term Irish projects: they do tend to have rather long gestation periods, though! If you wouldn't mind giving me till the end of this week, I'll attempt to gather my scattered notes into a starter article. Then you can add to, remove from, or otherwise improve it. (Even my N- and L-road contributions don't yet include all the bits and pieces I've been accumulating.) One thing I'm trying to do -- eventually -- is to remove textual descriptions from Category pages and put the material into proper "article" namespaces. We've still got quite a few pages where that needs to be done. -- Viator (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (BST)