Template talk:Jct/Archive/2018

Broken testcases

I see on the testcase page that there are a bunch of missing dashes in the sandbox. I was going to update the sandbox to match live, but I didn't see any obvious differences (besides the particular sandbox diffs), so I left it as it was. Anyone with a better knowledge of how it's put together want to take a look? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the city module include was using a version that was part of Chinissai's rewrite. That rewrite is stalled, so I moved it out of the way (it's now at Module:Jct/city/Chinissai) and re-mirrored the "stable" version to the sandbox. It's fixed now. -happy5214 00:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Template operation is obscure and hidden in module code; insufficiently documented

How does {{jct|state=VA|Sec|641}} ( SR 641 ) link to Virginia State Route 641 (disambiguation)? How does the template / module decide that "VA 641" is ambiguous? How can a red link be ambiguous? wbm1058 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: the template uses a Lua module, in this case Module:Road data/strings/USA/VA, which is set up to use the "(disambiguation)" link unless the county is supplied with secondary state routes. In this case, those numbers repeat from county to county, so they are ambiguous by default. Imzadi 1979 → !

@Imzadi1979: Right, I got as far as finding Module:Road data/strings/USA/VA, but its documentation could be made more clear. How does one "supply the county with secondary state routes"? Which county? Do you need to specify a county for a state highway? Hopefully most county roads are not considered to be "encyclopedic" or notable. Or are these actually county roads masquerading as state highways? Hmm, I see: State highways in Virginia § Secondary highways: Virginia has 48,305 miles (77,739 km) of secondary routes. These roads, numbered 600 and up, receive less funding than primary routes. Numbers are only unique within each county, and routes that cross county lines generally, but not always, keep their numbers. I see, Virginia State Route 630 is a typical template for these, I suppose. That is not a disambiguation page; perhaps it could be considered to be a WP:Set index. Virginia State Route 630 (disambiguation) is invalid and should be deleted, as it doesn't redirect to a disambiguation. Disambiguation would only be needed if there were a Virginia State Route 630 (film), Virginia State Route 630 (book) or Virginia State Route 630 (TV series), etc. I suppose. The module should point directly to Virginia State Route 630, not to a pseudo-disambiguation redirect to that page. wbm1058 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: You bring up two distinct issues. The Lua code that is responsible for the Sec type in Virginia uses the ifexists functionality documented at Module:Road data/strings/doc#Existence_testing. As you may have already figured out, the code returns one of the two format strings depending on if the corresponding county parameter (|county1= in this case) was passed to {{jct}}. This format string is then parsed by Module:Road data/parser to generate the link text.

Your other issue is about whether the "disambiguation" pages for these VA secondary routes are in fact set index articles. That is not directly related to the functioning of jct, and I think that would be better addressed at WT:USRD. -happy5214 22:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

As I noted, and as you read in the quoted passage, there are multiple secondaries with the same number. Because you could have SR 641 in Alpha County, a different SR 641 in Beta County, and still a third distinct SR 641 in Gamma County, that would result in the potential for "Virginia State Route 641 (Alpha County)", "Virginia State Route 641 (Beta County)" and "Virginia State Route 641 (Gamma County)" links, making the title ambiguous. Those separate links would point to the appropriate lines with a "Virginia State Route 641 (disambiguation)" page, or they could end being separate articles when the subject road is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. This is similar to the situation, with the ambiguity caused by reusing numbers in different counties, that appears in Michigan's county-designated highways where H-58 (Michigan county highway) is a full article, but H-57 (Michigan county highway) is not. Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: On a somewhat related note, could these be RCS'd? -happy5214 00:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, there are way too many. -happy5214 00:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no hard-coded "disambiguation" strings in Module:Road data/strings/USA/MI. I haven't looked at all 50 states, but Module:Road data/strings/USA/VA may be unique in having this code:

VA.Sec = {shield = "Circle sign %route%.svg",
          link = {ifexists   = true,
          			   arg   = "county",
                   default   = "Virginia State Route %route% (%county% County)",
          		 otherwise   = "Virginia State Route %route% ([dab||%dab%|disambiguation])"},
          abbr = VA.SR.abbr}

I see, per the Byrd Road Act, "the state offered to take over responsibility and control of most county roads, creating the Virginia Secondary Roads System." The Virginia Department of Transportation found the arrangement to be "unusual among the 50 states". Articles like Virginia State Route 630 strike me as odd. This is a de facto list of county roads, and the only thing they have in common is their number. Rather arbitrary. Imagine a list of all the "county roads number 30" in another state. Or a list of sports teams with Red as their main color. It would make more sense to list these roads by county, rather than by number. But is it worth the time to document every county road in the country? The western states have it easy, since they have relatively few of these. I suspect that on Wikipedia, only Virginia has this level of detail. Just because the state took over maintenance of these roads in the Great Depression, to relieve the financial burden on the counties. Right, this may be worth an RfC at WT:USRD. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

type=NJTP in Pennsylvania

With new signage on the Pennsylvania Turnpike directing drivers to use I-95 to the New Jersey Turnpike, it is now necessary to use the NJTP type of route with junctions located in PA. It is already a valid type in Delaware, used on the exit list of I-95 there. Is this something I can easily add myself or must it be implemented by an administrator? Roadsguy (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It's easy if you know how to do it. That being said, I added it.

I-95 north to N.J. Turnpike –Fredddie™ 02:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! Roadsguy (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I had no idea where to go to change anything, but I get it now after looking at where you edited. Roadsguy (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)