Jump to content

Talk:U.S. Route 395 in California/Archive 1

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

Postmile

Also, the message below...

:Note: Except where prefixed with a letter, postmiles were measured in 1964, based on the alignment as it existed at that time, and do not necessarily reflect current mileage. The numbers reset at county lines; the start and end postmiles in each county are given in the county column.

...can this be converted to a template to make things a little easier to include for other California highways? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not always going to be the same; for instance the one on SR 160 mentions it was partly SR 84. --NE2 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

State navigation

May I ask why the state navigation states that the previous state is Nevada? I'm definitely sure to say that US 395 ends in California... somewhere in Hesperia. Can't we use two templates for this kind of situation? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We could, but would there be a point? I'm not sure. --NE2 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I almost think you have to use two boxes. Otherwise the Nevada navigation box would say Oregon for the next state, which is equally not correct.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, there seems to be precedent for using two info boxes. For example James Monroe (governor of Virginia twice) and Grover Cleveland (President of the US twice).Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the Grover Cleavland is the better example as there is one president between both his two terms. It does what NE is proposing for the Nevada article, have California as both previous and next. Davemeistermoab (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What's an NE? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)My question was already answered on Talk:U.S. Route 395 in Nevada. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another image

--NE2 22:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Been there many times. That's a view area on the southern descent from Conway Summit overlooking Mono Lake. Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

History notes

1918 routing:

San Diego to Riverside (Route 548)
  • 5th, University, Park, Madison, Ward (now SR 15) through canyon, ?, Murphy Canyon (now I-15), Kearny Villa, Green Farm, Poway Grade (gone), Creek, Old Pomerado, Pomerado, Sunset, Escondido, Grand, Broadway, Washington, Mission, Santa Fe, Escondido, Vista, Old River, del Rey, Mission, Main?, Mission, Rainbow Valley, Rainbow Canyon, Pechanga, SR 79, Old Town Front, Jefferson, Ivy, Washington, Palomar, Mission, Lakeshore, Main, Flint, Spring, Collier, SR 74, D, I-215, Valley Springs, Fischer, Box Springs, Sycamore Canyon, I-215, University
Little Lake to Nevada (Routes 413, 415, 417)
  • West side of RR, crossing northwest of Coso, US 395 (very roughly)
  • Big Pine to Bishop: Main, County (roughly), Airport, unnamed (3/4 mi south of Sunland), gone (1/2 mi west of Airport), gone (1/4 mi south of Sunland), US 395 (roughly), Warm Springs, Main
  • This is pretty annoying to find the exact route, so I'll be rough: US 395

--NE2 03:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

El Camino Sierra
  • 1912: Los Angeles to Lake Tahoe via US 6, US 395, SR 89
  • 1915: proposed to Lakeview via SR 89, SR 147?, SR 36?, US 395
  • 1920: Inyokern to Lake Tahoe via US 395 into Nevada
  • 1921, 1925: and on to Oroville, WA via SR 89, ?, US 395, OR 31, US 97, US 197, US 97

Inland Route, Los Angeles to San Diego

--NE2 03:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are working on the notes, does that mean you plan to rewrite the history of the article US 395? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Not currently. --NE2 03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for photos

I have uploaded several photos of US-395 per request to add to this article. They are viewable at Commons:category:U.S. Route 395 in California I will add them, but first this article has some inaccuracies and I'd like a chance to clean it up first. Just to mention a few....

  • US 395 never served Los Angeles
  • SP tracks north of Inyokern were ripped up years ago (yes google maps shows them, but this is in error, check the satellite view, they are gone)
  • is 2 lane in portions of nevada, including the crossing at Lake Topaz
  • The limited access portion isn't long, IMO not worth mentioning, Is a city street in Adlento with WAY to many traffic signals to qualify as limited access past the first mile or so. This may have been true at one time, before the housing boom in this area, but is certainly not true now.
  • Near ghost towns are mentioned (Red Mountain and Atolia) yet the only populated settlement the area, that actually has an article, Johannesburg is not.

I am also working on two FA's so this is not my top priority, but will get to it, promise. Dave (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How to handle the Nevada section

Currently there is both a Nevada section in the Route description and Major intersections guide. Is this too much prominence for this section? How should the discontinuity in the route description be handled? Dave (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I could suggest is to take a peek at the U.S. Route 2 in Wisconsin and U.S. Route 2 in Michigan articles. US 2, in case you didn't know, crosses Wisconsin along the Lake Superior shoreline, crosses into Michigan's Upper Peninsula and then runs roughly parallel to the state line. It dips back into Wisconsin to cross Florence County, taking a more direct path between Iron River, MI and Iron Mountain. Once it crosses back into Michigan, it then stays in the state until it ends in the Straits Area.
The two articles (the Michigan one specifically) have a RD subdivided by the segment. The junction list has the state line crossing noted with mile markers (yes, US 2 is mileposted in MI) with a colspan to indicate that it leaves the state for 19 some miles. It seems to be simple enough. I'm of course open to suggestions as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that works. I'd be ok with re-formatting the route description to have two level 3 headings "northern segment" and "southern segment". Then the Nevada section could be removed entirely. I just reverted Mgillfr's changes as they left the impression the highway was continuous. Which is why I suspect you did too. Dave (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted simply because the edits gave that impression. I wouldn't ditch the Nevada section entirely. The US 2 articles are likely to get short sections that summarize the other state's intervening section as the article is expanded going forward. If so, then there will be a {{main}} template inserted with a brief summary, especially for the WI article since the MI western segment is 109 miles in length between the two WI segments. That's the idea I'll likely implement like the Nevada subheading here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Major Intersections - Mono County

OK so editor Gill Giller Gillerger decided to summarily revert all the edits I submitted for the "location" column of this section. His edit comments were: "add control city, remove some locations that are not communities", and "revert to restore lost control cities".

Upon reading the standards more carefully I admit I may have gotten a little carried away. Locations listed should be inhabited community areas, not indeterminate locations -- but I'm still wondering what a "control city" is. I was only trying to help, and there a few issues that I feel still need to be cleared up: the version reverted to is not good either. Maybe "Gill" and/or others could offer their thoughts?

- I had added Casa Diablo Hot Springs as the location for the junction of SR203. The interchange is clearly located within this locale (map), and it is an inhabited area, not an indeterminate location.

- There is no such place as "Grant Lake Junction." At the north interection of SR158 the highway sign clearly states "North Junction": I live here in June Lake and believe me no one refers to this place as Grant Lake Junction. Cain Ranch, located there, is a small settlement of LADWP employees.

- The location of "Tioga Pass Junction" is not the name of an inhabited community. The SR120 junction is within the community of Lee Vining. The Tioga Gas Mart is on the SW corner, and the Airport and Pumice Plant are across the street at this intersection.

- There is also no community, village or settlement called "Pole Line Junction," although SR168 is sometimes referred to as the old Pole Line Road (the Pole Line has been removed, though). This intersection is located at Mono City.

- Sonora Junction is a correct location for the junction of SR108.

- The junction of SR89 is in the community of Topaz, just a bit beyond the Fire Station.

Nemestrinus (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See control city. Caltrans does not, to my knowledge, officially designate control cities on non-Interstate routes. (Interstate routes have their control cities designated by AASHTO.) Most other states' articles only include unincorporated places if they are an official CDP or if they are shown on a well-known state map. (Naturally Caltrans doesn't publish a free state map, either. Grumble...) As unincorporated places have no formal boundaries it is quite easy to stray into OR territory with them. Perhaps since the highway is so long, the unincorporated places could be removed entirely? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Scott5114. By that definition, the control cities along this stretch of US395 would be Bishop, Lee Vining, Bridgeport and Coleville. These are the towns listed on directional and mileage signs. The standards don't say that only control cities should be listed in the Location column, though. It seems clear to me that the labels "Grant Lake Junction," "Tioga Pass Junction," and "Pole Line Junction" clearly do, in fact represent OR. I would then say that leaving the whole column blank (since none of the towns are incorporated) does not make sense, but Topaz, Mono City, June Lake Loop North Junction, and Casa Diablo Hot Springs do not belong there

Nemestrinus (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "Location" is not necessarily for control cities, but rather for noting where a given junction occurs, whether it be a large city or minor town. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

for possible intergration into history section

[1] and likely other sources note that California did some sort of historical designation for 395. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on U.S. Route 395 in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 395 in California. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_395_in_California/Archive_1&oldid=1086915009"