Talk:M25 motorway/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

7 Dec 2009 Undo

I appreciate your sentiments when you added the "miles" column to the M25 motorway, however I believe that they were mis-placed. Before you redo your work, please take a drive on the M25 (or any other English motorway) and look out for the Driver location signs. The distances that are catalogued in the article are the distances shown on these signs - please read the reference in the introduction to the section. By introducing miles you do a dis-service to drivers who wish to use these markers since thety will only ever see the kilometer-based markers when driving.

Finally, by making an issue of this, I am promoting roads safety in England - if there is an incident on the motorway, these signs are used to help the emergency services get to the scene of the indicent, but the British Government is very coy about the matter. By adding miles to the column, you will remove the safety message that I am putting across (but which should be put across by the British Government). Finally, I don't care what the Highway Code says about roadside telephones - most drivers use a mobile phone rather than looking for a roadside phone. Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits Martin, per WP:UNIT, "For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, in US articles they are usually United States customary units, and in the UK, they are more often metric units, with imperial units for measurements such as road distances and personal height and weight.". At the end of the day, Wikipedia is not here for POV pushing regarding your safety message. Jeni ^(talk) 09:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Jeni's reverting here. Road distances in the UK are always expressed in miles on direction signs and in everyday non-specialist use. The driver location signs are not used for navigation by the general public as there is no need - junction numbers, destinations and carriageway direction are all that is necessary (e.g. take the M25 clockwise to Junction 26 for Waltham Abbey). I suspect that the majority of drivers neither know nor care that the location signs use kilometres, they're just a number. As Jeni says, using wikipedia to promote anything (regardless of how worthwhile the cause may or may not be) is completely inappropriate per the neutral point of view policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If they are just numbers, then they should be displayed without units and therefore without any conversions. In that case, we should revent this article back to its state of 24 hours ago and change the "km" to "DLS". Martinvl (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the most logical solution is to remove the km col completely and just use miles, as is the case in the states. Jeni ^(talk) 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeni's suggestion is probably the worst possible solution as it violates both the WP:VERIFY and the WP:UNITS principals. The WP:UNITS principal states that in the event of a disagreemnt, the units used in the source document takes precedence and the other units are secondary units. The kilometre markings DLS are visible for any driver to see and in the case of the case of the M25 are published in kilometres in a Highways Authority document (See article for document reference). Clearly kilometres are the principal units. Martinvl (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is incorrect for us to use driver location signs as a source for distance. On many motorways, the measurement on the DLS sign is from an arbitrary point, not necessarily the start of the motorway. Taking the M6 as an example, the starting measurement point of the DLS signs is Charing Cross in London, yet the motorway starts 100 miles to the north at Catthorpe. The M1 starts at 11 or so km, as that is the distance it is from central London. Using driver location signs to measure distance for the purposes of the junction list is unreliable and incorrect. Its about time we started to rip out these columns from the junction tables and replace them with more accurate measurements. Jeni ^(talk) 11:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No - the correct procedure would be to record the start location as the Start of Motorway box. As a motorist, I am not too bothered about where the start point of the route is, what I am bothered about is "How much further"? If I know that a particular junction is at marker 758.0 and that I have just passed marker 622.0, then I have 136 units to drive. It would be nice to know what the units are. The actual units in the above example were taken from a trip when I drove to Naples, so I assumed that the units were kilometres. As regards ripping the existing measurements out and replacing them, do you have a verifiable alternative? The source that I gave is 100% verifiable and is also probably the most authoritative. Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking Wikipedia for a motoring guide. There are plenty of other wiki's which you can add this too, at the end of the day, this is an encyclopaedia. Please treat it as such. The guideline I linked to above explicitly states that imperial measurements are used on UK road articles. If you wish to change the guideline, please do feel free to start a discussion on the appropriate page. Over the next few weeks I will start to make the motorway exit lists compliant with the existing guidelines, of course, it would be easier for us all if you would assist in this. Jeni ^(talk) 13:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

user:Jeni wrote The guideline I linked to above explicitly states that imperial measurements are used on UK road articles. This is not 100% accurate. The text is actually For topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first...in the UK, they are more often metric units, with imperial units for measurements such as road distances and personal height and weight. The emphasis is on the word appropriate. In the case of driver location signs, the appropriate unit is kilometres because that is the unit of measure used on the signs. It is also one of the few road signs that has received a blanket ministerial approval for a deviation from TSRGD.

May I also remind of some of the Wikipedia cornerstones WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL (which supercede WP:UNITS). By converting the kilometers to miles, you compromise both unless you keep the kilometres.

WP:NPOV includes the statement … must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. In the case of distances, the only reliable source that I am aware of is that offered by driver location signs and by location marker posts. If you know of any others, please tell me.Martinvl (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are not really relevant here, the fact that driver location signs are in kilometres should be (and is) discussed on the article about driver location signs, it's not relevant to any specific motorway. The style guideline is clear that for road distances in the UK imperial units should be primary. If you disagree with that style guideline, then start a discussion on the guideline talk page, not here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Roads#More opinions would be helpful at talk:M25 motorway asking for people to contribute to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm just an editor from the States, but I'll toss in my £0.02 here all the same. Using the physical roadsigns would be akin to OR unless there is a published listing someplace. For highway articles here in the states, we have straight-line diagrams or control section atlases that give the distances along the highway, or published GIS data to come up with the milepost information. Yes, we have to do some arithmetic to get the numbers, but simple addition is not OR. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean maps like this one?

"M25 Road Network Driver Location Signs" (PDF). Highways Agency. Retrieved 2009-12-08. (Fer the record, the Highways Agency who published this map are the government body responsible for the main English roads). Martinvl (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And this whole discussion is whether the figures given in that diagram should be the only figures presented, and if not, how both should be presented. Ideally I prefer using only the published figures, but I am willing to compromise and display the published figures as the principal figures with the conversions in brackets, thereby keeping to the principal of WP:VERIFY. This is the format that I presented in my last posting timestamped 13:26 7 December 2009 (which was subsequently revoked by another editor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 08:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have just come in on this discussion and I think the following points should be made:

• Driver location signs give distances in kilometres. [1] This fact is worth noting.
• Ordinarily, this would mean that distances should be expressed in kilometres first. However, this does clash with the general preference in the UK for road distances to be expressed in miles.
• People have argued to follow the sources, or to follow the general UK usage. There is obviously no consensus on this matter.
• However, what is beyond argument is that the Driver location signs give distances in kilometres.

I believe that this fact is notable. Because of that I have added that fact to the article and have backed it up with a reference. However, I have not changed the order of the units, as this question may need further discussion. Michael Glass (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: I think the table of distances from the driver location signs should put the kilometres first. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, it goes against the accepted way of doing things, miles are the primary unit of measurement for distance on roads in the UK, per the MOS. Using driver location signs to mark the location of junctions is misleading, in many cases they do not start from 0 at the beginning of the motorway. I keep meaning to get round to convert the measurements so that they correctly start from 0 at the start of the motorway. Jeni ^(talk) 22:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If User:Jeni sees fit to add the distance in miles from the start of the motorway, then she should do so, provided that:

• She does not remove the distances as given by driver locations signs (which are verifiable and therefore in accordance with Wikipedia policy).
• She adds a note explaining why the distance in miles does not correspond to the distnace given on the driver location signs.
• She has a verifiable source that enables her to add the distances in miles.

Anything else will be vandalism - WP:VERIFY being one of the five WP:PILLARS which takes precedence over WP:MOS Martinvl (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem here where three things collide: the need to verify information; the guideline that says that miles come first in UK articles; and the reality that the driver location signs are in kilometres. Obviously, something has to give, and I believe that in this case the guideline needs to give way to common sense. In other words, it would be preferable to give priority to the actual figures on the driver location signs. Michael Glass (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the Driver location signs frequently use a datum point that is unrelated to the road they are on - for example the datum point for the M1 is in central London so that the start of the motorway is not 0. The M6 continues then continues the M1 numbering system, so that the location of junctions is apparently further from the start of the road than the road is long - I don't have the figures to hand, but if the M6 was 300 km long and the northernmost junction coincided with the 500km driver location sign you have to explain the discrepancy. As has been explained above, that the signs are in km is irrelevant - the public do not use these signs for navigation, all signed road distances are in miles, and junctions are referred to by (generally sequential) number or (less commonly) name - there location in relation to the datum point is irrelevant. If we include the location of the junctions in the article, and I'm not convinced we should, then we should follow the style guide that states unequivocally that the primary units for distances in UK road articles are miles. Having miles primary in some cases and secondary in other cases is a recipe for confusion - this being one of the reasons we have such style guidelines in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary purpose of driver location signs is to enable drivers to give their location to the emergency services. As such they are pure numbers that have no meaning. A secondary purpose is to enable drivers to check where they are. For example, if I pass the 140 km sign and I know that there are services at 150 km and at 170 km, I can make an informed decision as to whether I should drive 10 kn before stopping or 30 km before stopping. I do not wait for the next signs telling me how far to the services. When I am driving, I do this all the time. In neither of these situations is the zero point of any importance. Finally, Wikipedia should firstly reflect what is really out there and which appears on offical maps such as M25 Driver Location signs, (published by Highways Agency) (which after all is verifiable) and then do any conversions or translations as appropriate.Martinvl (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets be honest... "For example, if I pass the 140 km sign and I know that there are services at 150 km and at 170 km, I can make an informed decision as to whether I should drive 10 kn before stopping or 30 km before stopping." is not a purpose of the driver location signs, if it were, we wouldn't have signs giving the distance to the next services after most junctions! Just because you do personally, doesn't mean that is the situation for the greater population. Are you able to source that fact at all? Jeni ^(talk) 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone who actually works in traffic management, Driver Location Signs are still experimental and are not the basis of navigation in this country. The Highways Agency have started a programme of rolling them out in England only, as Transport Scotland and Traffic Wales operate different systems. Bryn666 21:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it is relevant whether the signs are experimental or not, or whether the numbering starts at zero or even whether the signs are used for navigation. The point is that they are placed at intervals measured in metres. Therefore, when we have a table that sets out the distances one would normally expect that the metric distances would come first. Take this:

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

Now the figure 3.5 miles is a reasonable approximation of the distance on the driver location sign. However, being an approximation, it's slightly out. In this case it's 67.296 metres short. (That's more than 220 feet and 9 inches short or more than twice the width of Tower Bridge in London.) So what we're deciding on is whether we put the source figures first or whether we put our approximations first. I believe that the source figure should come first. Like this:

M25 Motorway
km	miles	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
5.7	3.5

It's not a big change. It reflects the sources. There are still the conversions into miles. However, we have ensured that the source is quoted accurately. I hope that this explains why I have suggested this revision and why I believe that it is better than the present text. Michael Glass (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If the source is in km, obviously we should use the km figure and convert to miles from that, but whether the miles or km are cited first does not impact on their validity. Anyone verifying the source will see from the source that the figures given are in km, and we can even mention that in the description we give the source in the references section. Putting the km first might not be a big change, but it contradicts the style guidelines, standard practice on British roads (from which the guideline is drawn), and every other use of distances in the article. Before reading this thread I've never heard of anyone using the location signs to navigate to service stations - personally I use the signs that tell me how far away the services are in miles, as this makes it easy for me to work out how long it will take based on my currents speed in mph, and means I don't have to look up their location in a publication in advance or when I'm at the wheel. It wouldn't even occur to me that there would be publications listing the location of services with reference to the driver location signs. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thryduulf wrote ... standard practice on British roads (from which the guideline is drawn) .... From this statement I infer that if standard practice changes, then the guideline must change. In the case of driver location signs, standard practice has changed. BTW, if you are unfortunate enough to get a speeding ticket on a motorway, the location of the alleged offence might well be written "M4/123.4". Once you calm down and get home, you can use the driver location signs as shown in Wikipedia to verify that the police have filled out the ticket correctly, and if they do not correspond, you are in a position to double-check and challenge the ticket. Of course, if the ticker is correct, you have lost.

Finally, now that you have read about driver location signs, you might find yourself using them - they are at 500 m intervals - signs that explicitly advertise services are much farther apart. When I went to Italy last summer, I certainly equiped myself with some listings from the Italian version of Wikipedia to help me navigate. It is a pity that HMG spent £3.9 million erecting driver location signs and then not advertising them. Martinvl (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have known about driver location signs for a long time, and I posted up thread about how I used them to find a friend who had broken down on the M5, however I still don't use them for other purposes. Whether you used the Italian versions is not relevant to which order the units used on this article should be displayed in. I cannot verify what you say about the police noting the location of an offence based on the location signs - have you got a citation? I suspect the reason the signs are not being advertised as navigation aids is that they are not intended to be used for navigation - they are intended to allow emergency services to be given an accurate location for an incident. Standard practice for giving distances in miles on UK roads has not changed - the driver location signs give the same distance information as the roadside marker posts that have been present by the side of the motorway for decades - see http://www.cbrd.co.uk/indepth/mileagesigns/. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles. Lets go back to basics and in particular WP:FIVE.

• Is my approach encyclopedic? - Yes - the readings that I am posting meets all the requirements - in particular they are verifyable and they are not an editor's personal interpretation.
• Does my approach have a neutral point of view? What I have put in place is a statement of fact - it does not promote any point of view neutral or otherwise.
• Is it free content? - yes
• Am I interacting a a civil manner? - yes
• Finally, Wikipeidia does not have any other firm rules. As you pointed out, the WP:MOS recommends the use of miles in respect of British article sconnected with road becuase British roads signs are in miles. However driver location signs are not in miles, so this convention is weakened. User:Jeni did suggest that the distance from the start of the motorway in miles could be added to the junction table. As long as this was done in a responsible manner, I would not oppose it - however it would be up to Jeni to find a reliable source, but I woudl deem any modification to the driver location sign list without a good reason as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that you and I will see eye-to-eye on this point, so I wont rephrase again the reasons why I believe that the driver location signs being in km is irrelevant to the fact that the primary units for British road distances are miles and therefore that miles should be the primary units for articles about British roads. On your point about distances from the start of the motorway, all it needs is a reliable source for either the distance the start of the road is from the datum point, or how far from the start of the road any point is where the distance of that point from the datum is known from a reliable source. All other points can be calculated from this by simple empirical mathematics, which does not count as original research in WP terms. For example if Junction X is in one source noted as being 100km from the datum point, and in another source as being 50 miles from the start of the road, we know that the datum point is 12.137 miles (19.533 km) from the start of the road, therefore all other locations are (distance from datum point) - 12.137 miles from the start of the road. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are happy to cross-check the datum points for the start of each motorway and use the values given by the driver location signs to calculate teh mileage from teh start of the motorway, then leaving the driver location sign values will serve as a verifiable cross-check to your calculations. Martinvl (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It would however be confusing to have both values in the article, and so as long as we make it clear what the source of the start of motorway figures is and how they've been calculated, there is no real need to have them in the article. I'm still not convinced of the need to have any of these figures in the article anyway - Wikipedia is not a drivers guide nor an atlas. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be clear how the values are calculated. You questioned the need for the figures by writing Wikipedia is not a drivers guide nor an atlas. In my view, Wikipedia is whatever the users make of it and as such they are entitled to verifiable data that is presented in a neutral manner and having such figures does not hurt. Furthermore, publicising driver location signs could save a life, which cannot be a bad thing. Martinvl (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have two opinions here. One says that miles must come first as per the convention about British roads. The other insists that kilometres must come first, according to the source. If we set up the question like this, it will be impossible to agree. However, if we look at the question in a different way, we may be able to come to an agreement that will be reasonably satisfactory to both parties. In my opinion, the two salient points are the beliefs that miles must come first and that it must be clear what the primary units are. If I could come up with an arrangement that would keep the miles first but would make it clear that the kilometre measures were the primary units, would this satisfy the concerns of both parties? Michael Glass (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If we have the figures in the article, then the miles should be first with the km afterwards per all the other road distances. Obviously we should note that the source gives the figures in km, and thus the miles are the ones that have been calculated (I don't think we should describe either as "primary units" if we do this to avoid confusion). Imho, explaining this in the references section line that links to the source would be sufficient. My comments above about it being confusing to have both values refer to having distances calculated from the datum point and distances calculated from the start of the road, not having both miles and km. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re km and miles

There is a way to put the miles first but still show that in this case they are derived figures. This can be done by putting the miles in parentheses. Here is an example:

M25 Motorway
(miles)	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
(3.5)	5.7

By doing this both points of view are accommodated. It gives neither side all that they might want, but it is a compromise that I think that most people could agree to. What do people think? Michael Glass (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Before rushing ahead and adding miles, one should first read the article Milepost equation. It makes absolutely no sense to just convert the numbers on the driver location signs to miles – if the inclusion of miles is to be at all meaningful to drivers, then:

• They should be based on the start point of the motorway concerned, not the nominal start of the motorway.
• They should take into account any adjustments resulting from the milepost equation.
• The notes at the top of the junction list should explain to the reader exactly what each column means, emphasising that the driver location (kilometre) signs are the signs that will be seen by the driver and that the miles are calculated from the kilometre readings, taking into account the milepost equation. Martinvl (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the text to include the starting point of the numbering system. It's near the River Thames. (The sheet describes this as a point near Junction 31, but as this would be meaningless to anyone but regular commuters on the M25, I included the nearest landmark, which is the Thames.) It should be noted, of course, that the mile conversions have already been added to the article, and the question at issue is not whether they should be added - they're already there - but how they are to be presented. The question of milepost equation would only arise if the M25 had been rerouted, and as the driver location signs are relatively new, this is not likely to be an issue. Perhaps the wording could be expanded to take into account your last dot point. Michael Glass (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that there has been no further comment about my proposal to put the miles in parentheses in the table. I believe that it would be better to make this change to the article for the following reasons:

• It would put the derived figures in parentheses. This makes the table less likely to mislead readers.
• It would keep the order of units as they are, something that is very important to at least one editor.
• It could help to resolve the present dispute about the presentation of units with a reasonable compromise.

I realise that this compromise is not perfect, but it does seem to be the best fit at this time. Are there any further comments or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed your earlier comments appearing on my watchlist, but I oppose the presentation of the miles in brackets. It looks very wrong in the table. All that is needed is notes in the header row, something like

M25 Motorway
miles[1]	km[1]	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

with the ^[1] linking to a note something like "Distance figures are sourced from <title of source>[reference link] which gives the distance in km clockwise from a datum point between Junction 31 and the north bank of the River Thames.[reference link] Mileages are calculated from the distance in kilometres."

This does not give the confusing parentheses (a format often used to denote negative figures in tables), doesn't clutter up the display for those who don't care which figures are used in the source, and provides a link to all the relevant information in the standard Wikipedia format of table notes and references. The note could possibly be phrased better and probably significantly more concisely, but brevity is not a skill of mine. Thryduulf (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ps: I've also added a section sub header at the start of this proposed solution as the section is getting very long. Thryduulf (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Before this argument is persued any further, look at the practicalities if the text "km^[1]". Where do you plan to put the note for the text? If I was a reader, I would expect to find the text in the references section at the end of the aricle. This means that must be an auto-generated number triggererd by a reference tag. I spent some time trying to do that and make it come out in white, but failed - I always got a blue number (which does not show up against black). That is why I wrote an introductory section to the junction table. If you can get Wikipedia to generate white reference number, please let me know how you do it, otherwise rethink how you will present your explanations. (BTW, the text (A Carriageway) and (B Carriageway) also links up to the article driver location signs.

Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already a note in the text. I have decided to cut the Gordian knot. I have put an extra explanation in the text and put the miles in italics. Please look at what I have done, and if there is any problem let's talk about it more. Michael Glass (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The italics are better than parentheses, but still imo unnecessary as there is a mechanism to add footnotes in the manner I was suggesting - see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Separating reference lists and explanatory notes (WP:REFNOTE) which I still think would be the much better way of presenting it. The explanation is useful, but not where I would think of looking to see why the miles were italicised.

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

I've not bothered to write the entire note in this example, nor use the nested referencing. I too have tried to get it to use white rather than blue text for the link but I've not been able to. I'm going to ask this question at the help desk. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk#Changing the colour of links to footnotes for the question I've asked. Thryduulf (talk) 11

06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction Wikipedia:Help desk#Changing the colour of links to footnotes Martinvl (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a way, but it's a bit kludgy and will break the instant that a new ref is added. The poster who began with "It looks very wrong in the table. All that is needed is notes in the header row" was on the right lines where his example used the <sup></sup> tag. First set up the footnote, but not in the coloured background area. Then you need to determine the internal link ID for that ref, and the sup tag link to that with a normal wikilink. So we might have this:

M25 Motorway
miles[1]	km[1]	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

Note:

This mayfit the bill. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have played around with User:Redrose64's proposals and come up with this: The tricks that I used were:

• I made some "dummy" references and was able to lose the actual auto-generated number. (It disappeared into the ether somewhere to the right of the text "M25 Motorway").
• I tested how to insert more than one note. I actually insterd three notes, one of which had a link to another article.
• I tested how the system would wrap when I have "long" text in the carriageway columns. This happens in real life.
• I stopped the subscripts next to "mi" and "km" from wrapping by inserting a no-break space between the text and the subscript. (Wrapping occurs if the numbner in the column does not exceed 100.0)
• I replaced "miles" with "mi" to prevent the column from becoming too wide.
• The text that I used for the notes is purely for test purposes. We can agree the exact text later.

M25 Motorway
mi [1]	km [2]	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)[3]	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
23.5	35.7	A lot of text here for the clockwise carriageway, We need to test how it wraps.	J2	A lot of text here for the anti-clockwise carriageway, We need to test how it wraps.

Notes:

Martinvl (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the #cite_note-1 etc. to link to the correct notes. One was linking back to my earlier example. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

While I acknowledge all the hard work of other editors, I think my solution is neater, clearer and easier than the use of footnotes. See below:

Data from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from a point near the River Thames, east of London, when travelling clockwise on the motorway. . Figures in kilometres in the table below are from the Department for Transport; figures in miles are derived figures.

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

However, perhaps the introductory text could be tweaked. Any comments or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I am still opposed to the italicisation for the reasons I expressed above. Your version is simpler to code, but it is not clearer as you have to hunt outside the table for what the italics might mean and the mention in the prose is going to be irrelevant for those who don't are whether miles or km are the source figures (I suspect the vast majority), especially as those people interested in any detail on the driver location signs will read the Driver location signs article (I've just thought we could add a list of datum points to that article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add a reference to one of the notes in my version (notes cross-referenced by suffix [1], [2] and [3]), but it did not work. This leads me to suggest that the introductory text should read:

In this table:

• Kilometre values are displayed to the driver on Driver location signs
• Carraigeway characters are also displayed on driver location signs
• Mile data is a Wikipedia-specific conversion conversion from kilometre data

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to all three of those bullet points. 1 and 2 just unnecessarily duplicate the Driver location signs article. All we need to do is note that the DfT list we have sourced the km values from uses the same datum point as the driver location signs, we didn't use the signs themselves. Point 3 is unnecessarily self-referential, hundreds of sites scrape, mirror and reuse WP content so it isn't Wikipedia specific. In the body of the text, in infoboxes, etc we don't mark all the conversions as being WP specific. If it wasn't for this huge thread I would say that we don't need to mark the miles as derived at all, just that the source uses km, as we have this huge thread we apparently do need to note it, but we need not do so more prominently than in a footnote. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'd like to direct your attention back to my proposal. If I have read you correctly, what you said was that italics were better than parentheses However, the explanation was not where you would expect to look to find out why the figures were italicised. What we are trying to do here is to work out an acceptable compromise that everyone can live with. This means that those who want the kilometres first have to agree to having the miles first while you need to accommodate the views of others who insist we must clearly mark the difference between the original figures and the derived figures. Now you might feel we don't need to mark the miles as derived but remember that others will certainly regret that the kilometres have been relegated to second place. So, to make this work, both sides have to compromise, and that is something that can be very hard to do. I know my compromise isn't perfect, but I hope that it is something that we can all live with, however reluctantly. Michael Glass (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My previous comment was intended to be read as saying that although I personally don't think we need to mark the miles as derived, others do and so we do need to mark them as such. My very strong preference is that a footnote (separate to or within the references section, I have no strong opinion either way) is the most appropriate place to do such marking. The reasons I think this are:

• having a paragraph or bulleted list before the table is disruptive to the flow, especially one that duplicates the Driver location signs article. Can I presume you accept my comment about the self-referential nature of your previously suggested intro?
• The identification of the source for the figures is a reference, and should be treated like other references. This is where people who want to verify that the information is correct will expect to find the source they can use to do this.
• The note that the original figures are in km is a comment on this reference, and logically belongs with the reference.
• Footnotes are the standard way of providing notes about information presented in a table. See List of London Underground stations for an article that makes extensive use of references and footnotes in a table. This provides the information for those that want it and minimally disrupts those that don't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The heading in the table in the article List of London Underground stations is light gray in colour and the references show up well. The sub-heading in the junction list is black and the references do not show up at all. Maybe we should change the sub-heading from black to light gray. Martinvl (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume that the table is the colour that it is because it matches the junction numbers on the physical signs, but I have nothing against changing it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example

M25 Motorway
miles	km	Clockwise exits (A Carriageway)	Junction	Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway)
		Dartford Crossing A282
3.5	5.7

References

Martinvl (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to comments about the need for footnotes, the introduction to the table is already footnoted. I strongly believe that the table needs an introduction. We really do need to explain what the table is about. Otherwise it is going to be gobbledegook to the average reader. My own preference is for the present introduction to be retain in full. It says:

"Data from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from a point near the River Thames, east of London, when travelling clockwise on the motorway. . Figures in kilometres in the table below are from the Department for Transport; figures in miles are derived figures."

Obviously we have to explain the location of the starting point of the numbers (near the River Thames), what direction the numbers run (clockwise) and the units used (km). As the table has a column in miles (I agree with proposals to abbreviate this to "mi") we need an explanation of the two columns, and I think the present explanation seems to be a good place to put it. However, notes at the bottom the table would also be acceptable, though more cluttered. The note against the miles would have to explain that these are derived figures; those against the kilometres would need to explain that these are as per the Driver Location Signs. Even so, we would still need the introduction to explain what the table was about. Michael Glass (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with abbreviating miles to "mi" and the table does need to be introduced, however your introduction doesn't actually do that. Better would be something like "The table below gives details of each junction including which roads interchange, which destinations are signed from the motorway and how far it is from the driver location signs datum point near whichever bank of the River Thames it is." Other footnotes can come in the style presented previously. That miles being derived and kms are used in the source can be detailed in a single footnote linked to twice.As an aside, I think we need to specify which bank of the river the datum point is near so that it is clear whether the bridge/tunnels are at the start or end. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I agree with your proposed additions to the introduction though I also think that the unit of measurement should be mentioned. Perhaps the wording could go something like this:

The table below gives details of each junction including which roads interchange, which destinations are signed from the motorway and how far it is in kilometres from the datum point when travelling clockwise on the motorway. The datum point is a point near Junction 31 just north of the north bank of the River Thames . Figures in kilometres in the table below are from Driver Location Signs; figures in miles are derived figures.

Michael Glass (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire last sentence is not needed as it duplicates the footnotes, and is irrelevant to most people. I thought we'd agreed not to italicise the miles figures, so why italicise the word "miles"? The table shows both miles and kilometres so why do we need to specifically say it shows kilometres? Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I still want the miles to be italicised to set them apart from the kilometres. I also think the last sentence is needed to explain the layout of the first two columns in the table that follows. Note that the wording of the last sentence explains both the kilometres and the miles. Michael Glass (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm still completely against italicising the miles figures as it it is confusing and unnecessary. I still completely fail to understand why we need to set one off from the other or explicitly explain that one is derived from the other - I cannot find a single example of another table on Wikipedia that contains two sets of units where this is done. If you have two columns of figures, one headed "mi" and one headed "km" it's obvious that they are showing the same information in different units, otherwise we would have to explain every time we used a conversion in the prose as well. If one or both of these column labels has a link to a footnote explaining that miles are derived from the km figures used by the source, everybody who cares (and at least some who don't) will know that the miles are derived from the km figures used by the source. Please explain why any more is needed, given that this works perfectly well both everywhere else on Wikipedia and in reliable sources? Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Glass your constant trips round in circles in this discussion is getting extremely annoying, please cease. 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeni (talk • contribs)

Archival

We have talk on this page going back to 2005, and is now getting rather long. Unless anyone objects in the next few days I'll set up auto-archiving for this page. The bot has settings for how old threads must be before they are archived, I suggest 60 days, and the minimum number of threads left, I suggest using the default 3. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've set this up with the above parameters. The first archival should happen in a few hours. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed because of very little snow and many people

One year many people left work early, and got caught up with gritters, and the m25 was jammed for over a day. Does anyone have any info about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.178.113 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably the same time as this one on the M11. [2]. PeterEastern (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Staines upon Thames" or just "Staines"

Since you are not a registered editor and I cannot send you a message, I have had to reverted "Staines-upon-Thames" to "Staines". Can you supply documentary evidence that the road signs show "Staines-upon-Thames" rather than just "Staines"? May I draw to attention that the primary road network as per this document refers to "Hull", not "Kingston-upon-Hull", to "Kingston", not "Kingston-upon-Thames", to "Richmond", not "Richmond-upon-Thames", to "Newcastle", not "Newcastle-on-Tyne". It does however refer to "Newcastle-under-Lyme". Martinvl (talk)

Who isn't a registered editor and why did you "have to" revert the text back to the name by which Staines-upon-Thames was formerly known? Shufflee (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was unable to send you a message because you are not registered.
• Unless I am mistaken, nobody has told the Highways Agency about the change. Of course you might have seen documentary evidence that the motorway signage has changed, but until you actually publish such citations, the name "Staines" should stay - as I have shown the Highways Agency's track record is not to add extensions such as "-upon-Thames". Martinvl (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What sort of message were you unable to send? I am certainly a registered editor. And why does it matter what name the highways agency use? They call Manchester "M'c'r" on lane markings, but that doesn't mean that's what we should call it in Wikipedia. Surely the important thing is the actual name of the town. Shufflee (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

When people change junction lists, I normally send them a message telling them the policy - in this way I know that they have been informed. As regards the Highways Agency - did you look at the reference that I sent? Obviously not, or you would have seen the list of primary destinations and "M'c'r" is not one of them - in that list it is written "Manchester". Martinvl (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Send them a message telling them what policy? What exactly was stopping you sending me the message? I read the document you linked to, yes, but I don't see its relevance to Wikipedia. Shufflee (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Names on road signs

I see an editor getting stroppy about the exact form used for place names in this article. There is even an edit summary stating "UK Junction Lists reproduce the text on road signs themselves". The article content does not currently reflect that statement. The road sign for Heathrow Airport says just "Heathrow" and not "Heathrow Airport". The road sign for junction 13 says "A30 London (W) Hounslow Staines" not "London (West), Staines, Windsor A30".

I think we need a bit more flexibility here, and why should we overrule the Staines name change? Shufflee (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You would be better employed observing and showing respect to established editors. I would advise you to step back from this topic, unless you are trying to lose any respect from other editors contributing to this project. : -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about the article content? Do you think that the place names used should exactly mirror those written on the signs, or not? Shufflee (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point of view. These issues all too easily escalate into "edit wars". -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In the first instance we should follow the MOS - See WP:RJL. Martinvl (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We need to remove Windsor from J13 then, and put Hounslow alongside Staines-upon-Thames and London (west). Who is going to volunteer to check the signs for all the other thirty-plus junctions? Martin did I see you with your hand up? ;-) Shufflee (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you spotted it, why don't you put it right - that is what Wikipedia is all about (provided that you follow the WP:MOS and its sub-articles). As a guideline, I suggest that you first look at CRBD, and if you see any discrepancies, cross-check with "reliable" sites such as viamichelin or The AA. Martinvl (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just done it for J13. Shufflee (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please justify the use of "Staines-on-Thames". AS per WP:RJL, you shoudl be using the names as thezy appear on the road signs and the picture above quite clearly shows "Staines". Until the Highways Agency choose to change the roads signs, please stick with "Staines". Martinvl (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the current name of the town. WP:RLJ doesn't say you have to use the abbreviations, out-of-date names or shortened forms of names as used for space reasons or historical reasons on road signs. Or do you also think we should replace "London (west)" with "London (W)" as the sign clearly shows that too? Shufflee (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and just follow the accepted practice. Martinvl (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is that practice documented and what does it say about the use of name changes that occurred since the signs were erected? I don't imagine that it says to ignore them and carry on regardless. Does it say use "(west)" if the sign says "(W)"? I think we should respect the wishes of the people of Staines when it comes to the name of their town, and not look for excuses to frustrate them. But to be honest, I don't think I can match your determination to prove yourself right over this. :-0 Shufflee (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Shufflee is clearly not going to replace "Staines-on-Thames" with "Staines", so I have done it. If the people of Staines want their town to be called "Staines on Thames" on the M25 signs, it is up to them to contact teh Highways Agency. Until then, the shortened version stays, just as we have "Kingston", not "Kingston-on-Thames" and "Hull", not "Kingston-upon-Hull". Martinvl (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Darling Martin (and apparently Gareth too), you know and I know that the signs will probably never be changed. That doesn't negate the fact that the town name has changed though. WP:RJL, or whatever it is called, doesn't say that the article can only use the precise form of words used on the signs though does it, just that the same places must be listed. How do you account for the "W"/"west" discrepancy with your reading of it? Shufflee (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Orbital wording

Hello - sorry this is written in extreme haste. Briefly: this morning I reverted an edit in which the user wanted to remove the word "Orbital" on the grounds that it is not a true orbital motorway because of the A-road Dartford Crossing. I feel strongly that this was not correct: the article already explains very clearly that it is not a continuous motorway ring, and the word Orbital is used freely for this road, both in the article as explained and in the world outside, thus bringing in WP:COMMONNAME too. I feel that this was a major change in the wording that would need to reach consensus here first; I would, natch, oppose it were it suggested as I feel it is wholly unjustified. Sorry it's a bit curt, no offence meant; I'm juggling (incompetently) here! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Concur.

See the article's history – today's date –

(cur | prev) 08:36, July 3, 2012‎ Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,542 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Re- previous edit summary: I agree with DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ... of course it is "orbital" and should be referred to as such here. "Ring road", really! +para break added to clarify meaning of "It") (undo)

That's it: "End of story".

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Everbody calls it an orbital motorway in practice if not legally it goes all the way round so no need to remove the description "orbital". MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)