User talk:Vlad

From Roader's Digest: The SABRE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks

Just wanted to say "thanks" for all the work you're putting into this! It is appreciated. Steven 14:00, 17 April 2012 (BST)

Ditto Si404 14:11, 17 April 2012 (BST)
And me. Pass the barnstars! --Ritchie333 14:32, 17 April 2012 (BST)

Thanks! I've never had an appreciative posse before. Is there any specific way I'm supposed to behave? Vlad 16:14, 17 April 2012 (BST)

B116

Hi, Vlad.

The Sabre wiki lacking article talk pages, I hope you won't mind me posting here my reasons for reverting to the changes I made in my recent update to the B116 article:

via

Although it's possible that the 20 metres or so of road running ENE from the junction of Chapman Road and today's Rothbury Road (which had a different end-point before construction of the East Cross Route) may well be considered now to be part of Wallis Road, putting White Post Lane's western origin at TQ369844, during the lifetime of the B116 White Post Lane began on Cadogan Terrace, at TQ367844. The result is that all of the B116 was part of White Post Lane and none of it was part of Wallis Road. See the nearest in date large-scale map that I can find, which I've marked up here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/81703519@N08/7485762338/in/photostream

gridrefs

The GRs given in your revision appear to refer to locations in Victoria Park and to lie around 200 m too far west.

miles

The difficulty with entering very short distances in the infobox to only one decimal place is that it increases the inaccuracy of the kilometrage displayed. 0.07 miles shows as 0.1 miles -- which is fair enough for those wishing to see the length of the road to the nearest tenth of a mile: the result is the same as that for entering 0.1 miles, so no harm done. However, entering a value of 0.1 miles produces a displayed rounded-to-the-nearest-kilometre distance of 0.2, which is almost double the real length of 0.11 km! I believe that the purpose of the Length entry in the info box is to show just that: the road length, in miles and kilometres, not to be an element in a conversion table. Of course 0.1 miles is not 0.1 km -- but the road length (to the nearest tenth of a unit) was indeed 0.1 miles and 0.1 km. To my mind, it would be better if the infobox did not display distances in the format x miles (y km), but as x miles, y km, which would avoid this interpretation problem. -- Viator 11:16, 2 July 2012 (BST)


Thanks for the feedback. In terms of the road name, I was going by the 1922 list at 1922 Road Lists/Zone 1 Class II which claims the B116 is London (Wallis Road (part) ). Your map shows that it isn't!

Vlad 19:59, 2 July 2012 (BST)

B5010

Hiya,

I noticed you added to the B5010 article that the former section of the route between Chellaston and Thulston was upgraded to the A5132 before being declassified.

I can easily believe this, but I'm just interested in where this came from- it's right in my back yard and I thought I'd have known about it.

I'm going by the 1975 NBOTR. It clearly shows that the road between Chellaston and the A6 is numbered A5132. It didn't last long however as the 1977 OS 1:50000 map shows it as unclassified. I appreciate that this could have been a mapping error on the part of Reader's Digest.... Vlad 18:18, 24 January 2013 (GMT)

It would have been very short lived then, as the OS (on old maps) shows it as the B5010 in the late 60s, but it'd have made sense, as I think that was the kind of time the A5132 was created, and it seems a fairly logical continuation.

I'll have a nosy round the area tomorrow --Swarkestonecauseway 21:27, 24 January 2013 (GMT)

We don't need distances correct to the nearest 5 feet, surely?

Hi, Vlad. I would never supply a mileage to three decimal places unless I had an official source for it. But, in any case, where on earth is the harm in supplying the official length in the raw data (even to the nearest five feet) if known? It doesn't show up in the routebox as displayed -- so won't frighten the horses -- but what it does frequently do is make the imperial to metric conversions (as diplayed) more accurate. It's also an additional piece of information for those interested enough to take a look at the "raw" infobox. -- Viator 12:30, 19 March 2013 (GMT)

I wasn't even aware it was possible to measure roads accurately to the nearest thousandth of a mile, as surely it'd depend on where you did the measuring. However, if you've got official sources for these then I guess someone must have put in the legwork! Vlad 15:09, 19 March 2013 (GMT)

Thanks for the reply, Vlad. I'd guess the necessary technology must have been around for quite some time as distances along continental railway lines (following the centre line of the formation) have been measured to the nearest metre since the mid 19th century (and I can't think that British railways were any less accurate with their miles, chains, and, occasionally, links -- and 1 link = 7.92 inches, I believe).

It used to be a man walking along the road with a measuring-wheel (in use since at least the 1600s) -- one such man-with-a-wheel was sent out by the County Council 60 years ago to measure the road distance between my home and school when my parents disputed the county's refusal of a bus pass because (they said) I lived less than six miles from the school. (We won!)

You still see one-man-propelled measuring-wheels in use for short lengths today, though I suspect that for longer distances the wheels are now trailed behind motor vehicles (if not entirely superseded by satellite wizardry -- it's rather dangerous these days both to walk and to drive along the precise middle of the road!).

My figures for Aberdeenshire, by the way, come from local highway authority sources. -- Viator

Adding images

Hi Ed, I see you've been adding images to some defunct roads up north here from the galleries. Assuming you have the patience, it would be useful if you could edit the image to put it in the gallery for the page as well. That way the Routebox won't say 'no images in gallery...' when there is clearly one on the page!! Thanks Rileyrob (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2013 (BST)

Yeah - I've deliberately not been doing that on the grounds that these images are for defunct roads and therefore I'm not sure whether a recent photo should go into a gallery for a road that hasn't existed since the 1920s. The images as they stand are purely illustrative.
If you think that it is worth putting an image into a gallery for every road that's ever gone along that route then it may be worth doing but that's going to be a big job. Vlad (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2013 (GMT)
My own view is that the photo on the page should, at the very least, be put in the gallery, simply to remove the contrariness of the page having a photo, but the gallery being empty! Rileyrob (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2013 (GMT)
Right, that's done. It's taken longer than I expected but never mind.... Vlad (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2013 (GMT)

B3182

Thanks for disentangling that yucky mess of different iterations in close proximity. Shouldn't B3182 (Exeter) take the B3182 page, if it's active (1:10k mapping agrees)? Certainly, given the other two are Exeter routes, it ought to be B3182 (Exeter City centre) or something, rather than plain (Exeter). Si404 (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2014 (BST)

I think I've made things more complicated to be honest...!
I suppose everything's a work in progress, so feel free to move pages around as you see fit. I'm not sure as to whether the existing B3182 should be part of what we're currently calling B3182 (Exeter) or B3182 (Exeter - Countess Weir), as you could argue it could be part of either, or should be another page in its own right. Having 4 separate B3182s, all in Exeter, is making my brain hurt, so I'm going to leave things as they are at the moment in the hope someone else will do the dirty work. I might get round to changing things later. Vlad (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2014 (BST)

A408x two similar routes

Hi Vlad, AFAICS, the A4085 was used twice in the same sort of corridor, via a swap. Ditto the A4087. Both done in order to make the A487 follow the trunk road (done the same time as the A470 extension?). While each and every swapped road number would lead to a plethora of pages, I'd say split these ones. Creating A4085 (Tremadog - Dinas) and A4087 (Capel-y-graig - Menai Bridge) makes sense, given they weren't that short, were trunk roads and at least one end point changed during the swap (unlike many other trades). This would match the treatment given to the A464/A464 (Oaken - Nantwich), A529/A529 (Chester - Hinstock), or more close to home, the A4084 twins. Si404 (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2014 (BST)

Yeah - my theory so far has been that if two road numbers swap then there's continuity and so they're part of the same road. That doesn't seem to be true for the A4084s, which is why I created a page for the original - the A464s and A529s already had two pages so they're left as is.
I guess the best thing to do is go by consensus - so if you reckon the A408xs do need splitting then I'll go for it. Similarly if there are other swaps that people feel are sufficiently different to be separate routes then likewise. Vlad (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (BST)

Tutbury Bypass (A50)

True. Of course.

Thanks

lez

B5061

Hi Vlad,

The two B5061s, whilst right next to one another, never existed at the same time and are two entirely separate roads, hence two separate pages!

Steven (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2016 (BST)

I raised the point as the main B5061 article mentions the original route in no less detail than the B5061 (Wellington) page where you'd expect it to be. It seems we're duplicating information for no apparent reason, so surely the two pages should either be separated or combined.
Vlad (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2016 (BST)
Yeah, separated properly is the way forward I think. Steven (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2016 (BST)

B7050

Hi Vlad, I'm somewhat confused by your changes to the B7050 page. Then again, I'm somewhat confused by the maps and signs on the route. I picked up on it because I drove Underwood Road a couple of weeks ago!

The Roundabout with Well Street has this sign which numbers the eastbound Underwood Road as the B775. However, on the other side of the roundabout we have this sign numbering the westbound road as the B755 (hence my confusion). All other signs simply refer to the B775.

Even the spur which Open Street Map label the B7050 along Broomlands Street is signed as the B775 from the western end.

Looking on Old-Maps.co.uk I can see that the B7050 followed Underwood Road - Well Street - Broomlands Street - Maxwellton Street as recently as 1996 (before the new Gallow Green Road was opened) and met the B775 end-on. However, it appears that the new road caused the B775 to be extended along the now former B7050, with just the possible spur, which wasn't previously classified as far as I can identify, awaiting clarification. I can't find a list of roads for Renfrewshire Council (although I do like their Road Safety page: http://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/article/2330/Road-safety), but obviously if that shows the signage is wrong... Rileyrob (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's an awkward one, this.
Certainly as you say Underwood Road and Well Street were the B7050 for many years - I don't have a map showing the Broomlands Street/Maxwellton Street extension, so I suppose it would make sense if the road on this route was still the B7050 rather than being taken over by the B775.
The main thing I was going by was this sign, which shows Underwood Road as being the B7050 - note if you go back in time it's labelled as the B775 instead. The sign at the other end of Underwood Road doesn't seem to have changed. The large-scale OS map also gives the whole road the B7050 number.
Note also on map 1 in this Scottish Government pdf Gallow Green Road is labelled as the B7050.
I appreciate that this isn't complete proof and it could be one of these roads whose number isn't set in stone. If you think there's more proof the road is the B775 then feel free to alter everything I've written!
Vlad (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I was going to say that on the balance of half a dozen signs against one, we should change, but I've just looked back in the history on GSV and as you say, the sign you have found with B7050 on replaced a B775 sign sometime in 2008/9. Conversely, the sign heading west on the A761 went from being an unnumbered sign to numbering the B775 in both directions AT THE SAME TIME!! As far as I can see, all of the other signs stayed the same.
Searching further, it is clear that a number of local businesses and people still think the road is the B7050, using that number for directions on Websites, which must cause some confusion. Something needs changing, but I'm not sure how best to phrase the current situation. Rileyrob (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll have a go - but it might be better if someone who actually knows Paisley could rewrite the page to reflect the actual situation. Bear in mind I've never been anywhere near the place....
Vlad (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that was spot on until we find some more definitive information. Thanks. Rileyrob (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)