This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Image copyright problem with Image:Chpw cover-replacing 101a.jpg[edit]
The image Image:Chpw cover-replacing 101a.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
I can support the proposal. On the upside, this article at the very least needs to be renamed. Only some American route markers are shield shaped, most are not. Imzadi1979→ 06:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I agree to the merger, I would like to see the name, proposed structure and scope of the final article. When I designed the article Highway route markers, I aimed at making it a discussion of highway route markers in general, rather than being a random catalogue of various markers. The section on examples has the introductory sentence "These route marker examples have been chosen because each has a novel feature over and above route and location identification".
Looking at the merger proposal, I woudl be happy to do one of the following:
Expand the section Highway route markers#Route identification, extending the present section to look the philosophies of route identifier design (problems of WP:OR here unless a reference can be found)
or
Rename the article Highway route markers to Highway location markers (which is what maybe it should have been called in the first place).
In short, unless the scope and naming of the two articles can be aligned before we start, I oppose the merger. On the other hand, I am quite happy to rename the exisitng Highway route markers article to free up the name for the present Highway shield article. Martinvl (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not rename it Highway marker(s)? It seems like we have four articles on this same concept. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like Martinvl's second suggestion. If this is what ultimately happens, I would suggest adding a section on the United States as a whole, above the state subsections, using MUTCDSection 2H.05 as a source.
The problem at hand is that there will always be overlap, as the European convention is to include other information with route numbers (location, distance, etc.), or more accurately, vice versa, while the U.S. and Canada, for example, have signs devoted solely to the route designation. Mapsax (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a gallery of designs for the US, or Canada. There are already Numbered highways in the United States and Numbered highways in Canada for that purpose. We should decide what purposes will be covered though. There are several distinct uses for the marker. It can be a reassurance marker that is posted on the side of the road after major junctions and periodically in between. It can be on a guide sign, posted to alert motorists which way to go along a highway to get to different locations. It can be a trailblazer, which is posted on other roadways to "blaze the trail" to the highway in question. The designs can be either the same or different for these usages. For instance at one time in Ontario, their reassurance marker was a standard shield topped with a crown with a white background and black text. The trailblazer was the same design on a green background with white text and "TO" integrated on the design. The guide sign usage was just the outline of the crown with the number. Here in the US, most states use a "TO" banner plate above the standard design for trailblazer purposes. They may omit design elements to simplify the design on guide signs. Michigan omits the "M" and Maryland omits the state name on guide signs installations. Now I've seen in Michigan where the marker design is being added to the top of the mileposts on the freeways, acting as a secondary reassurance marker every mile, or in urban areas, every fifth of a mile. That would make our mileposts more in line with the European concept Mapsax mentions.
Having said that, we really should decide that structure of several articles and update them all in some unified fashion, with good cross links as necessary
Articles on specific marker designs, like U.S. Highway shield or Circular highway shield (the latter should be renamed to "Circular highway marker" since "shield" denotes a specific shape that isn't a circle.)
I like User:Imzadi1979's idea of co-ordinating the various articles. I am happy to take the lead in the article Highway route markers. The first question is whether its emphasis should be locations (as it curerntly is), or whether its structure be expanded to look at the hierarchy route, location, carriageway. If the general feeling is that it should stay pretty muich as it is, having location as its primary focus, then I will rename it Highway location markers, otherwise I will expand the route and carriageway identifiers and also make it the disambiguous link to the Trailblazers disambiguous page. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After skimming through what is at Highway route markers, what I'm currently thinking is that the whole article should be tweaked a bit. It's mentioning California's postmiles and New York's reference route markers, but doesn't mention the most ubiquitous location reference sign in the US, the milepost. I'm thinking that the location-specific content should be moved to a new location. Then Highway route markers should be a top-level summary page. That new page would summarize and link to Highway location markers or Highway location references, which in turn summarizes and links to different types of reference markers like the DLSs in the UK, mileposts/postmiles/reference route markers/etc. Highway route markers would also summarize and link to reassurance markers, some article on trailblazers for roadways, and links to specific marker designs where those articles exist. To put it in a more graphical form:
Highway route markers, the content of this current article plus summaries to:
Highway location markers, which in turn summarizes:
Any other article that can be written about a specific highway marker design or usage.
How does that sound? Imzadi1979→ 15:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact that they are different terms, is there a point to having both a Milepost and a California Postmile article (shouldn't the latter be a section in the first?)... or a reassurance marker and trailblazer? While designs and information included on them varies from country to country, they are all simply roadside signs with information. I think we should have one for milepost, one for marker (sign) or Highway marker that discusses reassurance markers, trailblazers, reference markers, driver location signs, control cities, and the other concepts unique to directional signage on roads. If any sign type is especially notable (such as U.S. Highway shield, it should have another article... But this just seems like its begging for 10 stubs on individual signs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 15:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, postmiles reset at county lines and mile posts only rest at state lines in the US. I'm not saying that some of the article ideas can't be combined, but at the very least, redirects from those titles will need to be made to direct readers to specific sections on pages. Build the ideal hierarchy first, and combine as needed second. Reassurance marker and trailblazers are similar enough (usually) that they could be in the same general article on markers, but they should still be redirect targets into the marker article. Whatever we do though, "highway shield" needs to be converted into a redirect someplace else, as most markers are not shield-shaped. It's a lazy roadgeek term to call all of them shields when most aren't. Imzadi1979→ 16:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably to Highway marker. I agree about redirects leading to appropriate sections as well. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 16:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must first of all plead ignorance as to what a US milepost looks like - I have never been to the US! The geographical items that I selected for outline discussion all have one thing in common - at least three pieces of information. Having reread the original article New England road marking system, I think that it would be out of place in the on the examples section, but could have a place in a historic section. Following the renewed interest in this sectio nof work, I have been thinking of expanding the sections on route identifiers, expanding on the concept that in some countries the prefix indicates the importance of the road concerned, but in others who maintains it. I woudl use a few example to illustrate what I mean, but I would by no means attempt to catalogue what each country does.
I have also been thinking about including a short section on the techniques by which various countries convey route identifiers to the driver - various shields in the US, colours in Europe (particularly red backgrounds in the Netherlands), and specific shapes such as the pentagon in South Africa (where I lived for many years).
In short, I would try to make this an article for the driver going abroad to tell then what sort of identifiers to look out for without cataloguing them. (For example, driving in France the D26 suddenly becomes the D44. Why? Answer: Because you have crossed into another Departement.
BTW, I see the Highway route marker article evolving to cover:
Each of these case studies have something interesting about them. If somebody can tell me about the US milepost, it will be included if it is as interesting as the examples given above. Martinvl (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A mile post, or a mile marker, in the US is a green vertical sign with white text. At the top is MILE horizontally with the number vertically below it. In Michigan, the new mileposts being erected have the direction on top above the marker, but are otherwise the same. If it's a fractional milepost, there is either a horizontal line for the decimal point, or the decimal is on a white background. Unlike the California postmiles or the New York reference markers, they are meant to be read by motorists. There is a metric version in the MUTCD as well.
The problem with what you're describing, Martin, is that those aren't route markers in the US. Those are location signs. The route marker is the sign with the highway's number that is posted along side the roadway every so often (reassurance marker usage) or with arrows and "TO" tabs to guide motorists to a roadway (trailblazer usage). The are also placed on the big guide signs or in assemblies with arrow tabs to direct motorists which way to go to follow a highway (guide sign usage). The UK doesn't use graphical markers, relying instead on text with specific sign colors to differentiate the different classes and numbers of roadways. That's why I say what's in Highway route markers should be moved to Highway location markers, and the former should encompass what different usages there are for the graphical route markers, along with the explanation that not all of them are graphical. Imzadi1979→ 19:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the weirdest route markers that I have seen were those that I saw when I crossed the Sahara desert in 1980. The piste (so named because it was not made up) was a route acrosss a vast gravel plain (with the odd sand dune) - 620 km without any signs of any plant whatsoever. The route was marked by numerous tracks and every 500 metres were two 200 litre oil drums, one on top of the other. They were covered in pitch and had the distance to the end of the piste written on them in huge white letters. Were they router markers or location markers? They certainly didn't have a route number on them! I don't have any photos of them otherwise they would certainly have appeared in the article! (BTW, in spite of them, Mark Thatcher managed to get lost while I was doing my trip). Martinvl (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They sound more like location markers but, that's really an oddball exception. I guess what I'm seeing coming to fruition here is a both merging and splitting topics. It looks like we should have an article on Highway route markers that summarizes the nature of graphic highway markers, aka "shields", in use in various countries. This article would cover reassurance, trailblazer and guide sign usage. It would have redirects from Reassurance marker, Trailblazer (road), Guide sign (road. In the US section, there should be links to U.S. Highway marker and Circular highway marker, which would be created by moving U.S. Highway shield and Circular highway shield. The article would also discuss that some countries don't use graphic designs and rely solely on text to mark routes. This article could use a summary and a {{main}} tag to Highway location markers to discuss that concept. The latter article could then summarize and discuss the various location marking methods. Imzadi1979→ 20:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead section it says: "Simplified highway shields often appear on maps."
The shields themselves are not being mapped; their symbology is being used.
It should say something like: "Maps often identify highways using symbols resembling simplified highway shields." --184.144.99.72 (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shields painted directly onto the road surface[edit]
At geo:37.6311260,-122.4360871 one can see highway shields painted directly onto the expressway surface. The article could perhaps mention cases like these. Jidanni (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
