Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Article Titles

If you noticed, SPUI seems to be on a crusade to rename "California state highways" to "California State Routes". A few days ago, he renamed all of the articles that way. And he was the one who posted Category:California state highways on CFD to be renamed like that. So I might suggest that we should also rename this Wikiproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Routes. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some of them had already been named that way, and a look at Caltrans's site made it appear that they usually use "State Route" or "SR". I have emailed Caltrans and asked them which is official for another data point. --SPUI (talk) 12:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As per the discussion on Talk:California Highway 17, this convention is highly problematic, mainly because it is a violation of the "use common names" naming policy. The articles should all be at the title that constitutes the most common unambiguous name for the highway, not the official title. Of course the "state route" titles should remain as redirects, but the actual title of the articles should reflect the common name, not some obscure legislative detail. Nohat 07:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
That's your opinion. USS Carl Vinson (CVN-XX) is not the common name either - but it's required in order to distinguish between different vessels. Similarly, ensuring that STATE highways are unambiguously listed in a different form than U.S. or Interstate highways is of clear importance to Wikipedia. "Highway 17" is highly ambiguous because it tells you nothing about the route's form - is it an Interstate, a U.S. Highway or a state route? This is far from a semanticism - it strikes at the heart of what the highway is and is not. I believe "State Highway" strikes an acceptable balance between the common name and the requirement for clearness and unambiguity. Ball's in your court. --FCYTravis 16:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
It is not merely my opinion, but the consensus of the community, that official Wikipedia policies must be applied. Being under the purview of a wikiproject does not exempt an article from having to follow official Wikipedia policies.
The disambiguation policy only applies where there is something to disambiguate. For example, most languages are at XXX lanugage because XXX is in most cases also the adjective describing people from the nation that speaks the language, like English, French, Spanish, Russian, etc., but a few, which do not share such a name, are simply at XXX, like Esperanto.
There is only one "Highway 17" in California, so the only thing that needs disambiguation is the state name. "Highway 17" is the most common name for that highway, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is the only policy that applies. Unless you can point to a policy that exempts articles about highways from this policy, then this policy must be applied.
As for "California state highway" vs "California highway", since California is uniquely a state, including the word "state" seems like an unnecessary redundancy. Nohat 18:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
It is clearly not a redundancy. You are far out of the mainstream when referring to transportation affairs. You have refused to compromise in any way. This is highly disturbing. It is NOT a "highway," it is a State Highway and there is clearly a need to include State to differentiate it. --FCYTravis 18:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, by your standards, we should rename the article entitled List of California state parks. I mean, "California is uniquely a state, including the word 'state' seems like an unnecessary redundancy." See how absurd this is? Clearly "state" tells the reader the article is referring to *state parks* in California as opposed to local, county, regional or national parks. Similarly, "state" in "State Highway" tells the reader the article is referring to a STATE HIGHWAY as opposed to a county, U.S. or Interstate highway. --FCYTravis 18:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This analysis is incorrect. "List of California state parks" is obviously different from "List of California parks" because there are parks in California that are not state parks. However, this is not the case for California Highway 17 because there are no other things in California called "Highway 17" besides this one road. There IS NO county highway 17, U. S. highway 17 or interstate highway 17 in California. There's no need for disambiguation if there is nothing to disambiguate. If there were county or federal highways in California that also went by the name "Highway 17" then, yes, it would be necessary to disambiguate the state highway. But there are no other such roads. I know I have already agreed to "state highway 17" and I'm not trying to reopen that argument, but I just think it's important to recognize that the word state is not necessary when there is nothing to disambiguate. Nohat 19:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
There are county highways/roads that bear the route number 17 as well. Stanislaus/Merced County 17 (technically, J17). Monterey County 17 (G17, technically). San Deigo County 17, Shasta County 17.... etc. I have not driven them beofre, but I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of them fit the strict definition of a highway. --atanamir 21:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. yes, you compromised to state highway 17. thanks. --atanamir 21:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I do think that it looks strange when you click on the Category:California State Highways link and see California State Route 1, California State Route 2.... California State Highway 17... but if the end user types in California State Route 17 then they will see CA-17, no matter what you want to call it.--Rschen7754 04:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm not sure I like the infobox, especially the various colors. It seems it would be easier for the reader to simply have a column at right that says what the status of the intersecting route is (beginning of concurrency, unconstructed, whatever). There should also be data on where the mileposts change at the county line, so mileage can be calculated along the route. The centering of the table also looks a bit strange. Any comments? --SPUI (talk) 12:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I have re-edited the infobox. It should be much easier to use and read (I hope). Bennyp81 21:20, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

It still seems very important to me to link to some sort of legend of what the colors mean. Someone just looking at the article will see the colors and have no idea what they mean. It should be in the main namespace so reusers will pick it up. Maybe some sort of javascript or CSS where you can show/hide it, like the way the TOCs work? Something like that is done on the template at the bottom of de:Bundesautobahn 1. Or not, must have been a different one. --SPUI (talk) 21:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I know little of how to use javascript or CSS, even less so in Wikipedia. However, I'll explore both, find some examples to steal--er, find inspiration, and tinker further with the infobox. Thanks for the insight. Bennyp81 00:43, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I think also trying to include the junction list into the small infobox is going to get kind of messy in real usage. If you look at California State Route 85, the junction listing for that takes up a lot of space, which will not go well into a small infobox on the right of the article. --User:Atanamir

  • The infobox should include only junctions of other state highways. Streets should only be shown if they legally define the route at some point, the route was relinquished from or to that point, or if there is a dramatic change of quality for the route (e.g. route turns from a freeway to a city street). Interchanges with city streets are already given at Caltrans' website. Just visit Caltrans' Exit Numbering page, click on the route you want to get info on, and copy the link onto the article at the External Links section. An example, for northbound Route 85:

* [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/calnexus/reports/eightyfivenorth.htm Cal-NExUS: Route 85 North]

Should yield this:

Cal-Nexus: Route 85 North Bennyp81 19:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

New Shield Graphics

I've uploaded a new series of shield graphics i made tonight. They're smoother and look better.

File:CA-1.gif File:CA-241.gif File:CA-blank.gif File:CA-905.gif etc.

  • They look awesome! And I'm glad we're using them, especially in the infoboxes. In the future, however, you might want to use two-digit miner's spades instead of three-digit ones, as those are more fitting for the two-digit routes. Still, they look great. Keep up the good work!

New Infobox

SPUI and I have been working on another infobox prototype for the routes.

The latest revision can be found at: User:SPUI/onthecaca

I think it looks fine so far. Continuing the discussion about colors in the box: Remember that a good portion of the population (1-10% depending on whose info you're reading) suffers from some level of colorblindness. So as per Color blind#Design implications of color blindness, one should never use color alone to convey info. Perhaps rather than including the text describing the status of each junction, there could be a numbered (or lettered) footnote that matches up with the color legend. Elf | Talk 04:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SR-109?

I read the little blurb about xshort state highways, but should we include them in the navigaion on the infobox? I'm adding in the infobox for California State Route 110, but i'm not sure if the previous should be 108, or 109. --atanamir 06:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend including 109 - only problem is then you can't get to 108. Maybe whatever 61 is merged into could also have a small box with only the navigation to 108 and 110. --SPUI (talk) 07:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • 108 hasn't been constructed or assigned to a specific road -- currently it is only on the books. 109 is a mile long running from CA-84 just after the Dumbarton Bridge south through East Palo Alto to 101, but I am not sure if it is actually signed. So, as of now, include 109. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Routes 109 and 114 might be special cases, as they are two distinct routes that basically serve the same purpose. Since Route 109 actually exists as a state highway now, it should be used in the infobox for Route 110. I might create one article that will share information for both routes in the future. 24.126.199.167 23:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Maps?

Do you guys think maps would be useful? Or yahoo! maps or something would suffice?

as an example, i've made a sample one up:

File:CA-9-Map.gif

what do you think?

--atanamir 10:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I have nothing against maps. In fact, I'm all for them! But are they easy to make? Do they show the routing accurately? What about more awkward cases (Routes 70 or 84) where the routing goes all over the place and require a greater area to map? Bennyp81 00:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I overlay the yahoo map and then trace it using illustrator. It shouldn't be too hard to make? But then 300 or so of them might get annoying after a while; haha. --atanamir 01:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility is like the map on RI 1A - might not be practical with California though. --SPUI (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I like the map. But, indeed, if it has to rely on one person to create hundreds of them, I wonder whether we'll actually end up with all articles with maps and/or in consistent format? Elf | Talk 04:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Section # / mileposts?

Where can i find information on the section number and mile post sfo the junctions? It's not on calnexus.... --atanamir 01:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Here: [1]. This is the Caltrans Bridge Log, where bridges and overpasses are recorded according to Caltrans district and route number. Just look up which county you want and select the Caltrans district for that county. A PDF showing you mileposts for bridges will show up, but it also includes mileposts for junctions to other routes. Bennyp81 22:03, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Interstates and US Routes

Interstates

I am assuming that we can put routeboxes, etc. on the Interstate 105 CA page (for example)? And change the structure to match this Wikiproject's? That's what it says on the main page. --Rschen7754 21:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • I have been considering that for quite some time; I added thei nterstates onto the list last night becaue they are, in the strict sense, considered state routes. Right now the infobox is setup to only use CA-XX.gif images; so we prboaby have to make another template for interstates; or we can add in a variable in the infobxo to set the type of image (CA-xx.gif or Interstate-XXX.png); it might be a probelm though as we have to go through all the articles to change it -_-.
  • Yeah, make new GIFs for the interstates, if only to make it easier for infobox use. Interstates that are entirely within California should have infoboxes. Information should be presented much like it is on other state highway articles. Bennyp81 21:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, the primary interstate pages i don't think we should touch, since they span multiple states. --atanamir 01:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

    • What if there was a mini-routebox on I-5's page (for example?) Or if we start a Wikiproject for Oregon (for example) we could create one routebox for all three states.--Rschen7754 04:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Another idea would be to call the image CA-405.gif although it is really Interstate 405. --Rschen7754 01:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Is there any way to create a redirect with images? --atanamir 01:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Not quite sure... having been on Wikipedia only a few months. --Rschen7754 02:39, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Tried to create one... the redirect is now on the speedy deletion page. --Rschen7754 02:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • For primary interstates, I think we should create a separate section within the article (and not a separate article) describing the route in California, as I have suggested for the U.S. Highways. Bennyp81 21:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • So is it okay to go ahead and add the routebox? Should Primary interstates be included in the browse section? --Rschen7754 04:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Check out Interstate 805: this is the first Interstate (to my knowledge) with a routebox. There are quirks that need to be worked out... to make the browse links work I created redirects for I-805 and I-780; could someone create them for the rest of the CA Interstates? --Rschen7754 00:23, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think a method needs to be worked out which makes the "State Route" redirects unnecessary; they are sort of misleading, e.g is Interstate 5 ever known as California State Route 5? - Evil saltine 07:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It is true that California law makes no distinction between Interstates, U.S., and state highways; as far as it's concerned, they are all "state highways." Nevertheless, any article about an Interstate or U.S. Highway in California should always be called an "Interstate" or "U.S. Highway" and never "California State Route." This should be true even for spur and loop interstates entirely within California. This is for the convenience of other Wikipedians who would be more familiar with the Interstate or U.S. highway title of a certain route number. Bennyp81 00:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Created all of the Interstate redirects, and added the classification/stub marker to all of the 3dis. (but I didn't think I-305 should be a stub). The 2dis still need to be classified though. --Rschen7754 22:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do any of you want to create a page for statistics of the interstate highway system in california? We can include how many miles total are in california, how much money... we can list the control-cities for the pullthrough signs and even write a bit about the 'quirks' that caltrans likes to put in califonria interstates (prrobably like how hov lanes are permanently separated in socal, and caltran's bosession with stack interchanges)... stuff like that. proposed interstates... I can see a lot going into this sort of page. somehting like Interstaet Highway (California) or something like htaht... sorry about the typo... its 6am and ijust pulled an allnighter doing an essay. atanamir 14:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

US Routes

Also... what about US Routes (the few that CA has)? The Wikiproject makes no mention of them. --Rschen7754 04:10, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • I haven't had time to add them on; i was going to do it tongiht but if you watn to help go ahead! =) --atanamir 05:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I will be making some USH signs tongiht as well for the ones that are missing signs.
  • Is it okay to put routeboxes on US 101? (as it is an interstate US highway)?--Rschen7754 22:27, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hm, I think it's best to hold off on that for now; if you do it to 101, then i'm sure peopele will wopdner why it's only for 101 and not the other US highways. myabe we can start a US Highway proejct and develop an infobox for that? --atanamir 01:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I meant adding routeboxes to all the US routes in CA... are we putting routeboxes on them since they are all multi-state? --Rschen7754 04:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • well, the problem is that it's not like U.S. Highway 95 (California), it's just U.S. Highway 95. That article is supposed to encompass the route as it passes throguh california, nevada, and wherever else it goes to. Hence, I don't think it'd be logical to ONLY include information about its California segment in the article; i think if we put an infobox it should be for the entire length. --atanamir 07:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
          • You could split the article into sections (like US 23) and put the infobox in the CA section. --SPUI (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
          • We could create a section within each of the U.S. highways articles titled "U.S. Highway XXX in California". There, we can add the infobox, legal definition, and route description. Also, I figure that U.S. Highways should be linked in the Browse section of the infobox. They should lead directly to the above-titled section in the U.S. highway article. Example: Routes 100 and 102 should link to Route 101 and not each other; the Route 101 link should send you to the California section of the article. Bennyp81 20:59, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
            • I believe the naming convention would be U.S. Highway XXX (California) ... it sounds like a good plan, it might be a little confusing for some though. --atanamir 09:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't work!

  • I must say I disagree with doing this. We don't do it for routes like I-80 and I believe we shouldn't do it for these either. Having a CA only route box clutters the page and hides the fact the route is multistate. Unless we rework it to do one nationwide route box (which might not work because of all of the routes that will have to be listed as cross routes) I think we should keep off the routeboxes. It just doesn't work.
    • Personally the reason I haven't put one on I-80 is because I haven't gotten around to it... I believe that ideally a Interstate WP and US highway WP should be created because those pages don't follow the same structure. Then a routebox for each wp would be added. Now when would we get around to all of this? I don't know, personally I have my hands full with CASR and WASR WPs and my schoolwork. But just a thought for the future... maybe for now either keep the ca routebox as a temporary solution, or just ignore it until things settle down. --Rschen7754
  • I say we leave the Primary Interstate and US highway articles as they are sans routebox until a new multistate routebox is developed. Putting a CA routebox on select interstates and US highways that only enter California clutters the page with routeboxes that are both misleading and if multiple states are used, it just gets worse. A new nationwide routebox is the solution if there must be a routebox. Gateman1997 17:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • An example: Interstate 95. What happens when all 15 states put a routebox on it? Although I-95 isn't in CA it's just something to think about... --Rschen7754 19:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly. You of course used one of the more absurd examples (ie: I-95, 90, 80, 70). But frankly even I-5 with only 3 individual states infoboxes would be both unsightly and unwieldy. If we're going to do one it should be a single multistate routebox similar to the CA ones but instead of EVERY highway it crosses we only include say either primary interstates or all interstates for interstate entries and maybe US Highways and Interstates for the US Highway infoboxes. Having every state highway as well would make I-80, 90 etc... have thousands of crossings, which would be unusable. And that is the priamry purpose of an encyclopedia, to not only have info, but to be a useful source of info. Gateman1997 19:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Although in CA's case having highways like CA-99 on the infobox would be helpful. But if you put in everything... CA-1's routebox is an example of a routebox that is too big. --Rschen7754 20:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
          • True. I've found CA-99 to be probably as big as an infobox should should and even then I'd say it's pushing it. Having multistate routeboxes with all crossings, or even a national one with all crossings won't work for highways like US 101, I-5, I-95 etc... We need a single multistate condensed infobox that has as I said earlier Primary, secondary and in the US Highways cases, US Highways. Also maybe include primary cities with populations over a certain number say 100,000 and a list of the states the route crosses.Gateman1997 20:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well... I'm considering just creating the dang interstate routebox soon. I'll create a WP just so that people know about the new infobox and I'll incorporate the other templates the interstate pages use (the list of all the interstate highways, etc.) I just want other people to weigh in so that I can get a go-ahead (not that I don't value your opinion or anything). --Rschen7754
  • Never mind about CA-99, if we do that then we'll have a programming nightmare for the routebox. We'll have to make 50 subtemplates for the routebox. Anyone interested? --Rschen7754
    • My bad... I was really tired. --Rschen7754 15:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow! Nice work. That's exactly how I envisioned it. And I like the addition of the state highways with the next numbers thing at the bottom. One suggestion I might have for it though since it might get a little messy with 50 states worth of SR 4s and 6s is that we put the secondary interstates that the priamry is parent of list there instead. But I'll leave that choice to you. It looks great. I imagine we could do something similar with US Highways as well. My other suggestion would be to change "Route 5" to "Interstate 5". Gateman1997 20:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • The reason I did the browse state hwys is so someone can get from CA-4 to I-5 to CA-6 so there's no problems... and there are templates for I-5,10, and 80 {{3di-5}} I think that have the 3dis. But we would need to create the templates for each family... it would be a little bit neater when we do 3dis that go into multiple states.

          Another problem: Should we use a CA routebox or an Int routebox for I-105CA? How about for I-205 which goes through OR/WA? Sorry, I like to think of everything. --Rschen7754
          • I think for the rare cases where secondary interstates cross into another state we should keep the state routeboxes, since technically they are two different highways even though they share the same track. For instance there is more then one I-280 but the articles are divided up "Interstate 280 (California)", "Interstate 280 (New Jersey), etc... For a road like I-205 I believe there should actually be two seperate articles and route boxes for the Interstate 205 (Washington) and Interstate 205 (Oregon) halfs. Or if one article is kept I would suggest making the box and article an "Oregon" interstate since that is where the road originates.Gateman1997 18:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
            • I'd say that we should keep it one article... now the Oregon routebox idea is interesting. In I-205's case the OR exit numbers continue into Washington and some 2dis do that. However some multi-state 2dis re-start mileage at the state line. So I'm really not sure about this one... we don;t want to confuse the end viewers which I think 2 articles on the same freeway would though. --Rschen7754 04:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also another concern I have is what about Interstate 238? It is technically a primary interstate, even if road buffs loathe it for being outside the original system designs. I believe it should be reclassified with your new primary routebox when it's complete as it is listed as a Primary Interstate in CA.Gateman1997 18:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with that... for purposes of the routebox. --Rschen7754 21:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • So yeah one of these days I'll create an Interstate WP. It will standardize structure by dividing route description section into subsections for each different state where legal definition, etc will go. The 3di family templates will be standardized as well as the interstate routebox. But in the meantime the routebox can go on primary Interstate articles- I believe you set type2 to "Interstate" minus the quotes if it is a 2di and if it is a 3di (including 238) then "Interstate-" Type2 is needed since the image files are named differently. Probably in early September I'll start the WP... lol... --Rschen7754

Southern California Freeways

I have a rather bold idea: Note that there are quite a number of stub articles regarding individual Southern California Freeways, featuring information that seems more appropriate for routes. After all, legally the route always trumps the name. As part of the WikiProject, should we merge and redirect all of these stub articles into a single article, taking out the information that should belong to the route they traverse? Bennyp81 06:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Do you mean putting all of the named articles into one article, or simply merging i.e. Golden State Freeway with Interstate 5? --Rschen7754 03:35, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, Rschen, that's exactly what I mean. 24.126.199.167 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

U.S. and Interstate Highways in Category:California state highways

I think that U.S. and Interstate highways do not belong in that category, because they are not state highways. For example, Interstate 8 is adequately categorized by inclusion in Category:Interstate highways in California. -- hike395 03:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I would disagree with that... they are state routes (highways) and the CS&HC does not diffrentiate between them... and the general consensus on the WikiProject talk page being that Interstates/ US Routes are to be included in the WikiProject and therefore classified as California state highways. While yes Interstates are not the same as the green state highways, they are still maintained by Caltrans and do fall into the definiton of state highways... However I could be totally wrong here so could someone else please weigh in? --Rschen7754 04:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia consistency issue here, too. I spot-checked: Category:Colorado state highways, Category:Nevada state highways, and Category:Maryland state highways do not list their respective interstates and U.S. highways.. I don't see why California should have one definition and most (all?) other states should have a different one. If we do decide to include non-state-highways, at the very least, the description of the category (and, indeed the title of the category) should be changed. It should be Category:California highways, analogous to Category:California mountains, e.g. -- hike395 05:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hike395--I checked a dozen 'state highway' cats, and none of the others include Interstates or US highways. In general, 'common use' is dominant over what any entity wants things to be called when naming articles, and I think the same principle would apply here. At least anyone who has ever looked at a US road map would consider 'US highways', 'Interstate highways', and 'State highways' three separate things. Also, listing them here seems redundant with Category:Interstate highways in California and Category:U.S. Highways in California. Niteowlneils 20:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those separate categories are a very strong argument for keeping Category:California state highways "pure" (only state routes).
For the sake of this WikiProject, I have an alternative proposal. Let's make Category:California highways, which contains the three types of highway categories, each of which only has one type of highway. This project can then concentrate on any article that appears in any subcategory of that category. So, there will still be one place to refer to all California highways, but there will also still be consistency between states. -- hike395 04:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then shouldn't we rename List of California State Routes to [[List of California highways? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would be happy with this proposal, or we could add to the cat desc of CaSR "Interstate and US highways are also considered CASRs, click here to see them."--Rschen7754 July 4, 2005 19:49 (UTC)
The standard way to do this is to have "related categories" section. I'll do so. -- hike395 July 5, 2005 02:13 (UTC)

I have recently edited the U.S. Highway 199 article in the fashion that one Wikipedian here suggested. Please share your thoughts. Also, I need to have the route shield on the routebox. Is it possible that someone can create image files of the Calfornia "cut-out" U.S. highway designs so that they can easily be used in the routebox? Right now, there's a "US 199.gif" but no "US199.png" as the routbox requires. 24.126.199.167 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

I've edited 199 back. It looked horrible and is not a CA state route. It should not be marked as such in the route box or the description as it is incorrect. 199 is a US Highway, not a California State Route.Gateman1997 01:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/California/Archive_1&oldid=472722984"