Jump to content

Talk:Crowsnest Highway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Highest point

[edit]

"The section of the Crowsnest within Kootenay Pass is considered to be the highest point on any paved road in Canada."

This is incorrect as the highest paved road is the Highwood Pass in Alberta. I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.45.157 (talk • contribs) 17:27, March 31, 2007

4-lane Freeway in Castlegar, British Columbia

[edit]

I have been to and through Castlegar dozens of times and at no point is Highway 3 four-lanes. The overpass over Highway 22 is two lanes wide, as well as the bridge over the Columbia River. I am deleting the reference to a 4-lane freeway in Castlegar. Richardbjohnson (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interprovincial Highway?

[edit]

I'm curious about this designation, as there's a small stretch of road in the farms of Abbotsford and Chilliwack that inexplicably (being 1000 km from the Alberta border) is signed as such. I notice there are no references given, and it's not mentioned again in the article... Miken32 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Tch.png 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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BC communities in infobox

[edit]

In response to the comment in the edit summary here, I am prepared to add the BC communities to the infobox, just as I did recently with the AB communities. In fact, I have them listed on a piece of paper here right beside me. What has been holding me up is potential controversy when I add Greenwood, Canada's smallest incorporated city, to the cities parameter. Unfortunately, the cities parameter publishes as Major cities. What is a major city? I feel that if there is a blanket parameter for towns and villages (with no major qualifier), there should be one for cities as well. This would prevent from relying on potentially controversial POV to determine what city is major and what isn't. I'm currently engaged in a discussion on this here. I plan to add all remaining incorporated BC district municipalities (Sparwood), cities (Greenwood, Grand Forks, Rossland, Trail, and Fernie), towns (Osoyoos and Creston), and villages (Keremeos, Midway, and Salmo) once this is resolved. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox design problems are constant, and this is another. Myself I don't see why the communities even have to be sorted by municipal category; and various important locations are unincorporated altogether, e.g. Hedley and Yahk, Anarchist Mountain also, and Cawston - and Sunshine Valley/Tashme and Christina Lake. It is not relevant at all, nor evident to me why categorizing places by municipal status is even in the infobox at all; all that should be there is the linear sequence, which is all that's really relevant. As for Greenwood, it's not a controversial issue in and of itself; if it's a failing of the infobox design, that's scarcely Greenwood's fault.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is not Greenwood's fault. What I'm saying is if I add it now, someone may scoff saying that isn't a major city and delete it. I'd rather attempt to resolve the template issue first, to support Greenwood's forthcoming inclusion, instead of engaging in a potential controversy. I may add all the above anyway before the template discussion is closed as maybe the odds are very slim such a controversy would be triggered anyway.
Imzadi 1979 made a great point in that discussion about geographic continuity among different urban municipal status types, which I had not thought of previously (had thought about within municipal status types yes, but not yet among all urban municipal status types). In the meantime, you've brought up the same concept as well, and I agree with both of you. As a result of Imzadi's comment, I've been analyzing this and am holding off on replying until I think it all through as carefully as possible.
Well, the solution clearly is to get the infobox tweaked....Fernie isn't considered a "major city" even by Canadian standards; not even really by BC ones (PG, Kelowna, Kamloops are "major cities", Castlegar maybe but doesn't even have a real downtown (downtown's more of a ghost town, in fact); downtown Trail is very urban, weirdly so; Castlegar's mostly suburban in character/population, a city of subdivisions. Creston's not a major city, though Cranbrook could be considered one only because of its relative/scale importance to others in the East Kootenay.Skookum1 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the unincorporated communities you provided above, are they urban in nature (i.e., do they have the built form/density of urban municipalities in BC, whether or not they meet the population thresholds to incorporate as an urban municipality at this time)? Does BC have a hamlet status designation (or something similar) for certain unincorporated communities just as Alberta does? If so, do the communities you mentioned hold this designation? Hwy43 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've seen "hamlet" on occasion in BCGNIS, but generally it's "locality" or "community" and "rural community" for unincorporated places. Hedley was a company town, once fair sized, and has a street grid to go with it; Cawston's an outlier of Keremeos and though has a small street grid is a farming centre with a few stores/mini-downtown. Yahk's like Spuzzum was - not much more than a gas station and store, though with a surrounding rural/bush population, Moyie's similar though larger, and so on....I'll go through the list (Sunshine Valley, Hedley, Cawston, Christina Lake etc....) and designate each one by their BCGNIS classification.Skookum1 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BCGNIS designations:

Taking a break; Greenwood-Midway onwards next, though not right away. If you want to search yourself see here.Skookum1 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take all the time you need as I'm dragging my heels on replying to this in detail or the template discussion in detail (or at least wait until I do). Hope to do so before the end of the week. Hwy43 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be a parameter in the infobox road template for unincorporated communities. If you were to add the above communities/localities, where would you place them? Note that I did not add Alberta's unincorporated communities to the infobox (hamlets and localities), so adding BC's without AB's would be inconsistent. If BC's and AB's are added, then the AB-aspect of this article would be inconsistent with all other AB highway articles.
In the meantime, I'm now going to add BC's incorporated DMs, cities, towns, and villages (based on statuses published by StatCan at the time of the 2006 census). Please review for completeness and adjust in case of any municipal status changes since 2006.
Out of curiosity, I have a question on DMs. They appear to be municipalities that have both urban and rural components, where the urban component(s) usually holds the majority of a DM's population, and the rural component holds the majority of a DM's geographic area. Is this correct? Hwy43 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crowsnest_Highway&oldid=1206834029"