Talk:Rest area/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

Yes. These articles should be merged, due to their similar content and the Motorway Service... article being very small. Changes should be made to the Rest Area article so that it contains more information on areas outside of the US. --Benbread 13:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

In many states it is illegal to sleep in rest areas if you are not in an 18-wheeler. the state police will tell you to vamoose. -matt

This would be worthwhile to add if you could be more specific on the information (and provide sources) than "many states".

I know that in Virginia, on the rules and regulations list posted at rest areas, it is illegal to sleep in the rest area building, but there is no mention as to the legality of sleeping elsewhere on the premises, such as in one's vehicle. I have seen many people late at night stop at rest areas to take a siesta, and have also done so myself, and no one's ever given me problems over it, nor have I seen anyone else have problems with it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

UK Motorways link

I took a look at the link that MarkSG inserted and reinserted, and I don't see anything wrong right offhand with including it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that all but one of the offsite links have now been removed. I'm not going to revert it this time, but I'd ask that other editors check the links that were removed (and, indeed, the one that remains) and make their own judgment on which are relevent and which are not. MarkSG 06:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I'm the editor who removed all but one link. As to the ones I removed I always refer to WP:EL & WP:NOT when looking at links. I also check the actual link out. Wiki is not a directory so links to service stations on all roads throughout the world look to be inappropriate. The fact that there weren't many more there seems a matter of "so far" there aren't - the presence of the heading would have merely encouraged other contributors to think that the links were wanted. In general Wiki requires encyclopedic content not links.

The one I left (to me) really seems to add something to Wiki in terms of history & information and also provides other appropriate links without the need for them to be placed on Wiki itself (additionally it has no appearance of being commercial (WP:SPAM). Hope that clarifies things for everyone --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rest Stop movie

The page Rest Stop redirects to this page, when perhaps it should be a disambig page because there is a movie called Rest Stop (Rest Stop (film). Thoughts? -Elizabennet 02:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a full dab page for it, but definitely a dab line for it at the top of the article. I'll put one in there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

A number of articles should be merged here: Highway oasis, Illinois Tollway oasis, Overhead restaurant, Truck stop, Lay-by (though Lay-by overlaps with turnout, so maybe not that one). Any objections? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-28 09:40Z

Highway oasis, overhead restaurant, and lay-by, merge away. I'd keep Illinois Tollway oasis and truck stop separate, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think of a rest area as being the same as a lay-by; more of a simple roadside parking area provided by the highway department, that may not even have restrooms or running water. A truck stop, OTOH, is a privately-owned business, near the highway but not directly on it, where you can buy food and fuel, and that might also include other features catering to truckers like shower and laundry facilities or even a motel. The thing the rest area article currently describes is what I'd call a highway service plaza -- owned by the highway department, with direct limited access to the highway like a rest area, but with private contractors providing some of the services of a truck stop. So, my suggestion would be to rename the current rest area article to service plaza, rename lay-by to rest area, and merge highway oasis with service plaza -- all with appropriate pointers back and forth to explain how the three things are different. Dr.frog 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that renaming one article and then giving another article the first article's name would get somewhat confusing pretty quickly. So I'm opposed to that. Reading lay-by, though, I don't see why it couldn't fit right in with the rest of the article. It would broaden the topic coverage in rest area, and would consolidate similar topics. After all, what is a lay-by but a "diet rest area"? SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Dr.frog and agree with Schuminweb. --Coolcaesar 07:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Schuminweb, thank you for doing the merges! I agree with the friendly amendments regarding lay-by and truck stop. I also agree Rest area shouldn't be renamed. I didn't post about this before, but before I rewrote the lede in February, I did some research, and the most common names for the subject of this article are "rest area", "travel plaza", "rest stop", and "service area", in that order, and less commonly "rest and service area" ("RSA"), "service station", "resto", "service plaza", and "service centre". —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-13 08:53Z

Here are some references on the terminology I'm familiar with. Rest areas in Michigan have parking, restrooms, and picnic areas, but no restaurants or service stations. The Massachusetts Turnpike calls the kind with restaurants and service stations "service areas", not "rest areas". "Full-service rest areas" on other Massachusetts highways include "rest rooms, information kiosks, telephones, and vending services", but not restaurants or gas stations. Connecticut distinguishes between "rest areas" and "service stations" on its highways. Rest areas in Utah area also the restrooms-and-picnic-area variety, not the restaurant-and-service-station type, as are those in Missouri and Washington. In other words, this is the common usage in every US state I've ever lived in. Dr.frog 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'm with you on that one. However, they all fall under the same overarching concept, and so "service area", "rest area", "service plaza", etc. are all basically variations on the same thing. Thus why we did the merge. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Truck stops are totally different entities than rest areas, etc. If we're done discussing, could someone remove the merge tag on the truck stop page? The Parsnip! 14:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rest area vs. Truck stop

I am a truck driver who is also a webmaster and occasional Wikipedia participant. In my opinion, "rest areas" and "truck stops" are not the same thing -- not even remotely! Rest stops are for cars, and casual travellers. They have lawns, but (on the west coast) no commercial facilities. Back east, along the toll roads, there may be some tourist-oriented commercial areas.

On the other hand, trucks stops have acres of pavement, cafes (often with a Truck Drivers Only section), fuel islands, truck repair and specialty shops, etc. Many are installing overhead power/AC/Internet hookups, so that truckers do not have to idle their rigs overnight.

Both may provide fuel, but while rest areas service mainly cars, North American truck stops also feature unmanned "card lock" fuel islands. 71.131.20.198 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC) -Paul C

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

== United States NPOV ==

The middle part of this section reads like a negative commentary on the truck stop industry. I.e., it claims that laws against commercialization of rest stops are responsible for propelling truck stops into a 171 billion dollar industry, as if commercial success is a bad thing. It also complains that truck stops have to buy up land, put up big signs and you have to drive too far off the main road to get to them, etc., etc.

The law quoted is taken out-of-context and read in-context it is clearly safety-related. The law does allow use of areas above and below the road grade for "such purposes as will not impair the full use and safety of the highway".

It all has the impression of someone's negative opinion. The facts about these non-commercialization laws, if they are relevant to the article, need to be expressed in a more neutral POV. Rsduhamel 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I inserted nearly all of that text you are disputing. I strongly disagree with your view. I believe I have gone out of my way to research and describe the highly polarized commercialization issue from a neutral point of view. Note how I used the positive verb "blossomed" instead of negative verbs like "metastasized" or "exploded." I am simply trying to describe a situation which Americans take for granted and which other countries find odd. It is interesting for Americans like myself to see how gas stations and restaurants are easily accessible from European motorways. Conversely, it is interesting for Europeans to come to America and see how inconvenient it is for Americans to get to commercial services from Interstate highways. A European driver can often roll off the motorway and stop right in front of a gas pump, while Americans like myself must roll to a stop at the bottom of the off-ramp, turn onto a surface street (with its own local traffic patterns), drive a few hundred feet, turn again, line up with a gas pump, and stop. The statute is quoted merely to explain why Americans must put up with such an awkward situation (with its concomitant wastefulness of gasoline and brake shoe material) that is not found in most other countries with controlled-access highways.

Also, you misquoted the statute yourself. The full sentence you are quoting is as follows: "Such agreements may, however, authorize a State or political subdivision thereof to use or permit the use of the airspace above and below the established grade line of the highway pavement for such purposes as will not impair the full use and safety of the highway, as will not require or permit vehicular access to such space directly from such established grade line of the highway, or otherwise interfere in any way with the free flow of traffic on the Interstate System." Note the clause about "require or permit vehicular access" which you left out. Clearly, this clause does not deal with rest areas (which are directly accessible by vehicles from the established grade line of the highway). Rather, it is designed to allow for situations where commercial operations are built on top of or below freeways to take advantage of what would otherwise be wasted airspace. For example, there is a Walgreens pharmacy on top of a segment of Interstate 80 in Reno, Nevada. In San Jose, California, there is a storage rental unit facility under an elevated portion of Interstate 280. And so on. --Coolcaesar 07:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been four weeks with no response, I'm pulling the NPOV tag. --Coolcaesar 07:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Plushighway4.jpg

Image:Plushighway4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted strange assertion concerning welcome centers in airports

NONE of California's welcome centers are located at airports. Does ANY state have a welcome center at an airport? I've been to 21 states and I haven't seen one in an airport yet. --Coolcaesar 07:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lay-bys

Removed the following paragraphs from the lay-bys section

Some motorways that don't have hard shoulders have a lay-by [*] - despite it being illegal to stop on the carriageway of a motorway.

[*] Not a "lay-by", and because not in spite of...! (Should be merged with next para.)

A new version of a lay-by is coming into place. Emergency Refuge Areas (ERAs) are being used on the M42. At rush hour, its new high-tech signs can open the hard shoulder to traffic, and ERAs then operate as lay-bys. They will have cameras so operators can give an arriving vehicle help (if it's broken down, giving them help on joining the road (as there is no-where to build up speed), etc) and the cameras also detect motorists needlessly stopping. They come with a good amount of space away from the carriageway (when the hard shoulder is not in use) and new emergency phones, that as well as a phone have text messaged replies for the hard of hearing, and 8 different languages.

because, by the very definitions given here and earlier in the article, ERAs and the like are not lay-bys, but pull-off areas strictly reserved for use in emergencies only. A version of this material belongs in Wikipedia, but not, I would say, in the article dealing with rest areas. -- Picapica 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The following sentence currently contained within this section seems to be of personal opinion: "Many roads in the United Kingdom do not have sufficient lay-bys and drivers may have to journey for many miles to find one."

Unless there is an appropriate reference for such an assertion, I suggest deleting this sentence from the article. Roaringmouse (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless it can be sourced, it's highly POV and needs to go... SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

External linkage

I am interested in having my website listed on the External Links section of this page. The website address: www.restareahistory.org discusses the architecture and developmental history of Interstate rest areas. I can be contacted directly through the email link on this web page

75.205.232.106 (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Joanna Dowling

Thank you for asking first, but you have a GREAT site! I'll happily add it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rest Area's Vs. Exits

It should be noted that what this article sometimes refers to as "rest areas" are really just commercial establishments which are only reached by exiting the road. A true "rest area" is located directly on the road and is either in the median between the north and south lanes (Garden State Parkway for example) or directly to the right of the travel lane (Massachusetts and Connecticut Turnpike's for example.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.206.168 (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom are located on motorway junctions. May I suggest that a rest area should, for purposes of this article, only include those areas that are dependant on passing trade and not on local patronage for their commercial viability. Martinvl (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Resto

There are several people named Resto, as well as it being a term in medieval art, so there's no reason for the word 'resto' to redirect to this article. A disambiguation page would make more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.44.227 (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)