Jump to content

Talk:Interstate 69 in Michigan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Assessment

The article's RD and history need to be expanded before it's at B-class. For the former, it's short for an interstate and a 200-mile route, regardless of interstate status. The history is also lacking for an interstate. CL — 02:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing mileposts on Exit List?

The Exit List seems to have a milepost indication at every exit, but the notice says, "This section contains a table that is missing mileposts for one or more junctions." What more needs to be done? --Thomprod (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed that column and combined it with the "Exit #" column. --Thomprod (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

exit numbers near the eastern end of I-69

I made a change very recently which was apparently rescinded. I had edited "I-94 exit" into the table for what is listed as exits 274 and 275; having checked the I-94/Michigan article, I found that 274 and 275 are mileposts of I-94, not of I-69. The reason for "I-94 exit" was to avoid confusion over use of mileposts from a different highway. Yes, I-69 does not end at I-94 (it AND I-94 continue to the Blue Water Bridge), but its mileposts are apparently NOT used for those exits. Consider reinstating the changes stated in the paragraph you are reading.

Let me point out other situations where more than one route shares the same road. New Jersey has mileposts along both US 40 and US 322 (non-expressways, but following the common pattern of milepost number increasing N-bound or E-bound), and although they join at McKee City and share the road the rest of the way to Atlantic City, there are no more US 322 mileposts (use US 40 mileposts instead). Similarly there are no US 301 mileposts in Maryland where that route is on the same road as US 50 (a stretch which includes the Chesapeake Bay Bridge). However, part of the Salisbury bypass elsewhere in Maryland has both US 13 and US 50 AND uses mileposts for both routes (specifying US 13 or US 50 as the case may be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The short answer: adding "I-94 exit" into the number space is clunky and inaccurate. Something like that should be accomplished by adding to the notes column. It's clunky to add additional text to a column that only contains numbers. It is inaccurate because it is I-69's exit 274 as well. Imzadi 1979 → 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is now accounted for by a note in the table: "I-69 begins using I-94's mileposts for exit numbers".

Reconfiguring of I-94/I-69 near the Blue Water Bridge

As you can see from the photo in the MDOT press release at [1], new overhead signage (implying MORE THAN ONE SIGN) were installed to guide local traffic (with an American flag) and Blue Water Bridge traffic (with a Canadian flag) into the proper lanes. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I came up with a better solution: the note for that exit is now consistent with the others since MDOT omits business loops in the outbound direction (no indication for them at the eastern terminus for traffic going eastbound, etc) and placed the actual flag icons in the appropriate locations. The Canadian flag is on pull-through signage there, which we disregard in talking about the signage for the actual destinations of an exit. Imzadi 1979 → 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs) keeps altering the notes for exit 275, the easternmost junction with BL I-69 in the Port Huron area. In the eastbound direction, it is signed:

United States M-25

Westbound it is signed:

BL I-69 / BL I-94 / M-25

This is similar to exit 94 which is signed eastbound:

East Lansing

Westbound it is signed:

BL I-69 – East Lansing

MDOT has a well-establish practice of not signing business loops in the outbound direction. In other words, since traffic westbound at exit 94 is headed away from the direction BL I-69 travels, MDOT omits that from the exit signage. For all other exits along I-69, the exit list indicates these variations, yet Steelbeard1 keeps insisting on removing or altering the notes to that effect for exit 275, without discussion. His actions have already driven myself off working on the Interstate 94 in Michigan articles, leading me to abandon a general revision of that article's history section, leaving it in an incomplete state. Imzadi 1979 → 18:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning that westbound I-94/I-69 signage away from the Blue Water Bridge omits the American flag does not make sense. Imagine you are a Canadian traveler who left the Customs area approaching the expressway. No one would expect to see an American flag on any MDOT sign at that point. I expect a standard 'welcome to Michigan' sign on any road at the Michigan border and that is the case as the I-94/I-69 freeway begins. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Just as the business loop signage in the outbound direction would similarly not make sense, but the implication is that unless specified otherwise, both directions are all intersections/interchanges display the same signage. We note the differences. We have exits 10, 13, 57, 61, 93, 94, 199 and 275 (8 entries) that have these signage variations. So my choice to you: the note comes back or the flag goes. Imzadi 1979 → 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Steelbeard1:, remember this is a GA with potential to go through ACR and FAC in due course. As such, it needs to be internally consistent in its treatment of subject matter. Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
But common sense also has to prevail. I am assuming that you do not live anywhere near the Port Huron area, Imzadi1979. Have you ever been to Port Huron, Michigan? The flags are on the signs approaching the Blue Water Bridge to make sure traffic goes to the correct lanes as a concrete barrier separates traffic bound for Canada from local traffic staying in Michigan. I am assuming that the standards for highway signage in these articles refer to actual highway route signs such as for M-25, BL-I-69 and BL-I96. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The table needs to be internally consistent; it needs to accurately reflect what is or isn't signed at each junction. If the flag is going to be shown, the table's notes need to make it clear that it is only shown in one direction. The alternative, while retaining it, is to convert each of the 8 impacted cells of the table to display something similar to:
EB: United States
 M-25 north – <cities here>
WB:


BL I-69 west / BL I-94 west / M-25 north – <cities here> 		Eastbound last exit before Canada; eastern terminus of BL I-69 and BL I-94; southern terminus of M-25
That way no notes are necessary to display what is and isn't signed in each direction. Otherwise, the lack of specific notes, combined with the presence of specific notes on the other 7 entries, implies the flag is displayed in both directions. Imzadi 1979 → 03:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Removing the flagicons make sense. On the Ontario side, the Christina Street exit before the USA does not show the flags and there is no barrier between bridge and local traffic as shown at [2]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)How about we drop the stick and move on? If the flags are so important, by all means, take a picture of them and we'll work it into the article somehow. Bickering over one line of the exit list is not constructive. –Fredddie™ 03:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There are no other locations in the US or Canada that use flags on their guide signs at the moment in such a fashion. When photos were posted in the forums at aaroads.com , a member of the NCUTCD, the body that updates the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, actually wanted contact information for that regional office at MDOT to collect additional information. His idea is to introduce the innovation in other locations in the US near international border crossings as an option. MDOT did not use them for the reasons you state; they applied them because 600–800 drivers each week are hitting Customs by blindly following the old configuration of the freeway in the area. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking over this, Steelbeard appears to be a tempest in a teapot. Imzadi has brought almost all of the Michigan highway articles to Good or Featured status; don't consistently throw sand in the gears while they're actively expanding the article[3] over what are generally semantic edits (ie [4][5][6][7]). If you have concerns over the content, discuss them on the talk page! Imzadi is correct that the Canada signs are for traffic continuing along the freeway, not exiting. An equivalent would be for highways that provide the next exit on signs at each exit, we'd list both the actual exit as well as the following exit in our notes. I like how MDOT doesn't sound like a robot for the elected government party in their press releases. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
But then BEFORE the I-94/I-69 widening project began in 2011, local traffic not going to Canada exited on the left. The project shifted the traffic configuration so now local traffic exits on the right. In the body of the article with linked citations, it mentioned problems with the new configuration due to motorists who were used to the old configuration and with those relying on outdated GPS devices which now give the wrong instructions on where to exit. That's why the signs are the way they are with the flags on signs to help guide motorists to the correct lanes as now, local and Canada traffic are separated by a concrete barrier. That's why the traffic issues became newsworthy due to motorists heading to Canada by mistake such as this news story from 2011 during construction at [8]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That may warrant a note to the effect of "Reconfigured in 2012 to right-hand exit" or something to that effect to note the recent changes to the exit rather than labeling the through lanes. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If you read the link I provided about Denny McLain's arrest, it took place during construction in 2011 when local traffic began exiting on the right. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't need to. Adjust my wording as necessary; this is more of a consistency issue with style, formatting and precedence, not the semantics of the note used. - Floydian τ ¢ 09:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Earliest I-69 alignment in Michigan

The source at [9] shows that the earliest freeway segment of the future I-69 opened in 1959 in Genesee County, Michigan. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That source is self-published. It cannot be used, and relying on it will cause this article to fail at ACR and to lose its GA status. Imzadi 1979 → 21:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 69 in Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 69 in Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 69 in Michigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_69_in_Michigan/Archive_1&oldid=1083517056"