Talk:Single-point urban interchange/Archive 1

Neutrality

The disadvantages take up most of the space, and have no inline citations to back them up (of course, then again, neither do the advantages). I'm sure this can be improved. --Darkwind (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to address your concerns about this page. What do you think? Does the current iteration resolve your objections regarding NPOV? Alataristarion 06:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Removing Neutrality tag.--G1076 21:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Better photo available?

The photo currently on the page of a 'newer SPUI' from Everett Washington is not good. It's really tough to even see that it is a SPUI, let alone get an idea of what a SPUI looks like in any useful way. There are a whole string of SPUI's along TN-285 in Memphis. Does anybody have a photo of one of those? There is also an over freeway SPUI in Nashville along TN-155. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cransdell (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a terrible photo. Anything would be better. Do the ones in Nashville have the intersection on top like the graphic? Most of them near me have the intersection on bottom, so it's harder to see from an aerial photo. tedder (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

German non-Autobahn SPUIs

Hans, not quite sure what you meant here. For example, for Heilbronn, did you mean Neckartalstraßse at Karl Wüst Straße, 49.169071°N 9.204397°E / 49.169071; 9.204397? And for Sindelfingen, did you mean Rudolf Diesel at Böblinger, 48.699818°N 9.006386°E / 48.699818; 9.006386? --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Chaswmsday, exactly. This are the interchanges. As there's no street view, I prefer to have a second pair of eyes to give this a review. Btw, those arterial roads are no autobahns. A is Autobahn like non-tollroad Interstates (Freeways), B is Bundesstraße like US-Routes, K Kreisstraße County road, but sometimes maintained and supported by the State like State route. L = Landesstraße like State route. This resuls from the „Bundesstaat“ and „Staatenbund“. I am not sure to declare this as a SPUI, cause the right turn is under signal control. See see also the talk section above about the Texes SPUI. --Hans Haase (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Motorist-Centric Bias

This article seems to have a very strong (though probably unconscious) motorist bias. Pedestrian treatment is barely mentioned, and bicycles aren't even mentioned at all. The SPUI interchange is very safe and efficient *for motorized traffic only*. These intersections are notoriously unfriendly for pedestrians and cyclists. I believe an unbiased treatment of this interchange type should specify that the advantages accrue only to motorists and highlight more of the disadvantages to non-motorized road users. Scott Roy Atwood (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Focus on the right turning vehicles, in most SPUIs not under signal is it an argument. This requires references. In this case statisitcs. On the other hand, the separated roads can be more save for pedestriants. Cyclists may have a problem clearing the intersection, but they will never make a left turn or use the left lane in a SPUI. I suggest to get references. --Hans Haase (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

SPUI, SPDI, SPI...

I prefer calling them Single-point urban diamonds, 'cause I like potatoes... --Clorox (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not made for findig theories. We need to refer relaiable sources. SPUI is a official used name. The German "RAS" guideline for road design (Richtlinie zur Anlage von Straßen) release 2008 calls is "Raute mit einer Kreuzung" = rhombus with a (in meaning of only one) intersection. This results, they build one with a 4th traffic lights phase for straight way ramp to ramp, loosing all performance bennefits to the intersection. --Hans Haase (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for a clearer example

There's an SPUI near me that I feel would provide a clearer example picture. The interchange in question is between I-4 and US 98 in Lakeland, FL (coords: 28.0852,-81.970325). I think it's a little clearer to understand, since the two carriageways of I-4 are separated quite a bit (the gap's twice the width of US98, I estimate), making the intersection below quite visible. In addition, I'm not even sure that (former) SR4080 is even still in existence. As of 1/2/2012 (latest Google Maps imagery), the southbound carriageway has been demolished, and only the northbound remains, connecting SR408 to the Greeneway. (coords: 28.553781,-81.269839) Consider this an impromptu image request. 65.33.107.187 (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the lakeland SPUI appears to be designed as an inverted SPUI, first.

About the SPUI in Orlando: Streetview imagery was made on June 2011, 45° birdview and satellite view differ. The bridges of the toll road are new and in Streetview under constructon. Has the SPUI has been removed or been built? --Hans Haase (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The first SPUI was in Texas?

See http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg272879#msg272879 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#First SPUI in Texas, not Florida? --NE2 20:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

At 32.743737,-97.289357 – Beach St, Fort Worth, Tarrant, Texas 76111, USA is a SPUI today. Streetview pictures clearly show it. Let's check historical pictures. On SH-180 in El Paso are diamond intersections with Texas-U-turn lanes. These are not SPUIs, misunderstandable cause the hwy is on the overpass and the U-turn lane appears to be the left turn lane of a SPUI, but it is not! An other question? Who created the name "single-point urban interchange"? --Hans Haase (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The oldest avail aerial photo in g earth was made on 19 Jan 1995. The design of the concrete, shown in streetview may be a design on the 1960ties. Are there documents avail from newspaper archives, liraries or TXDoT? --Hans Haase (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The first SPUI in the US was at US-19 and State Road 60 in Clearwater, Florida. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is in the article, right. Let's see, if there are reputable references. When yes, who gave the name "SPUI" to this kind of interchange. If no, end of discussion, see Wikipedia:POINT. Let me add, the idea of the Cloverleaf interchange was invented twice. In America and in Europe. A talk or chat is no valid reference. I recommend @NE2 to get valid references from reputable WP:SOURCEs. --Hans Haase (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting, fucko. --NE2 14:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Five ramp variant

@Hans Haase: I'm not sure that the example you gave for the "five ramp variant" is one of Kurumi's "SPUPCLOs". Rather, it looks to me like a modified SPUI with one of the moves replaced by a loop ramp. A SPUPCLO would have replaced all the Y-ramps with loops, but the 223 / 42 interchange retains three of the Y's. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Chaswmsday, thanks for reviewing it. Taking a closer look on Kurumi's oddities of interchanges, the SPUCLO has a 90° intersection on the crossroad. At 45° the bridge hides the sight on conflicting vehicles. In case of an underpass of the crossroad, it may be a dangerous variant on traffic light failure or red signal violation. The Oberhausen central interchange is very close to a SPUI, having the crossroad in an angle of 90° to the highway. Only the 5th ramp with the right turn lane and the modified offramp arround the loop of the additional onramp differ from the standard SPUI design.

• 
  SPUI 90°
• 
  six ramp SPUCLO ~45°

While understandig it for myself, I created this sketch of the SPUCLO. Today, I think I should draw an other SPUCLO based on the diagram of the SPUI, showing it correctly with the crossroad in angle of 90° to the highway. In any diamond based interchange, a 5th ramp is a loop ramp or redundancy if no loop. In larger SPUIs each right turning traffic from each offramp is far away from the single intersection. Due issues like weaving or flooding the lanes of the crossroad, there are 2 offramps only. Bringing all this facts together, Kukumi's sketch is in a minimized resolution, showing the ramp configuration for understanding it, but hiding details of the intersection. As there's no other example, I will try with sketches on paper if everything fits in what I wrote. --Hans Haase (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did not find any mistake. The answer of the missing upper dash of the "Y" is caused by the 2nd right turn into the loop ramp making the left turn and the slip road of this path into the onramp obsolete. Going on with this theory: A fictional "8-ramp-SPUI" is a cloverleaf with a missing weaving zone on the crossroad, but yields instead, or the 2nd offramp from the highway is sharing a 2 phase signal with the 2nd right turning vehicles of the crossroad each direction. The 2nd right turning vehicles from the crossroad are the left turning vehicles from the crossroad into the onramp in a SPUI. If everything is right, the 6-ramp design variant would be a good advice to Taylor, Michigan about their SPUI to I-94 when giving attention to all of google earth's historical pictures of that interchange. ;-) --Hans Haase (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Using Kurumi as a source is very questionable. You can't just call him a "highway historian" on your own to make his website acceptable. Rather, I challenge you to demonstrate where he (or she) has been cited in the news, in journals, or in books as a "highway historian". Given that he is writing under a pseudonym, that also works against his credibility. Imzadi 1979 → 01:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Scott Oglesby, see http://www.kurumi.com/about.html published, the SPUCLO. Let's use this simply by existence, Oglesby declared it as fictional. The Oberhausen central interchange still exists. Map material show, there is one signal controlled point only. The question is stil: Is it finding of theories? No, we just collected knowledge of similar interchanges that have most in common. The focus on the SPUI is the single intersection. This is in common with the Oberhausen central and Oglesby's publication. The only theory might be declaring it as a SPUI due the number of ramps. This is clearly declared as a variant like collecting SPUIs from the maps. The theory would be the same as to declare interchanges with 4 ramps and a single interchange on the crossroad where all ramps end as a SPUI. I would agree with a similar change: "Scott Oglesby who calls himself a highway historian…", but I respect him and even with or without a drgree of profession he published this information. Giving it a review, roads and ramps can be build it this way and the Oberhausen interchange exists with all it's similarities. --Hans Haase (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If he's the only source for a SPUCLO, and it appears in no other sources, we can't use the name, end of story. He's not a reliable source, and he can't just call himself a highway historian. He has to be acknowledged as such by others. Otherwise we are engaging in our own research here and not republishing the findings of others, which is against policy. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. What about the Oberhausen interchange? I guess we hurt the mayor target of the WP to collect knowledge. Sure, it is not on the editor to rate, but we are hiding existing facts. This is not about Wikipedia. About Oglesby, it is the same as registrated patents that have not beeing built, but they still exist. As a result we should bring it carefully into the aticle. It is no originary research. OR would be if we would write more about than avail. I already declared the creation of "SPUCLO" as not official. "Fictional" may be linked, for people who do not know what this is. Refering Wikipedia:Verifiability we have no violation, but now a retarded article with still existing quality problems and a over illustrated POV in the project rating and focussing the SPUI better that it is or representing it major. Oglesby's publication itself is not that major to bring it into the article, but the Oberhausen central interchange exists. It is the same topic. --Hans Haase (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

We have policies and limitations though. We write articles about notable topics, and do so in an encyclopedic fashion. We have policies on sourcing the content we add to articles. Unless you can present sources that designate Oglesby to be an expert, his self-published website cannot be used, period. That means you'd have to find another source that is considered reliable. The only one I could find is [1], a PowerPoint from a professor at North Carolina State University with a single word mention and two images. That's hardly enough. I've said my piece, but I believe editors here have a very flawed understanding of how our sourcing policies work. Imzadi 1979 → 08:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, where's the exact point of violation of WP:SOURCEs? Else, in the article Interchange (road) contained more knowledge in former versions. Today, the references have not beeing changed to better ones, but links on the article also fails today because the targets have been removed. Joseph E. Hummer's PDF is from a reliable source. The images are the same as on Kurumi. Deeper backgrond is missing, cause it is in a presentation only. --Hans Haase (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota's first single-point urban interchange

This is not true: "The first one in Minnesota opened on Penn Avenue over Interstate 494". Where highway 55 goes under 100, it was a SPUI long before they re-did Penn Avenue. That was the first SPUI I've ever seen but I'm not going to pretend to know if that was the first in Minnesota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.126.236 (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, refer the mn-dot or other reputable sources to refer and verify this information. In case of doubt, use the time bar (historical areal view) in google earth, if avail, to see if the interchange has been existing at that time or not. Do not trust by users uploaded photos. The "1st SPUI in 2001" seems very late to be trustable. --Hans Haase (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Example farm

The section on the use in North America was turning into an example farm. Before restoring it, please read WP:NOT, specifically the part about Wikipedia not being a directory. We do not need, nor do we want to have, a comprehensive listing of every SPUI in the world, let alone every use in North America. So unless or until someone is willing to write a new section giving a few representative examples, say listing where the first SPUIs in key places were built to illustrate their spread geographically and chronologically, I will be firmly on the side against restoring a section that just lists where SPUIs are in use. Imzadi 1979 → 06:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

SPUIs are that common in the US, would differ to global view. As the collection was more detailled, a list article would be an alternative to make the artice unterstandable for users who are reading it 1st time. Delete and discuss later might not be the best solution. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979, i suggest, to keep the section or sperate article to have users complete the list. Later, this Information will be a sumary for article ab provide good information. Collecting the data will require to know where SPUIs are, later analyze and collect documents about it, when the interctions were built, how many vehicles and they serve. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's say we were talking about a McDonalds restaurant instead of a type of interchange. So we would write some content about where the first restaurants opened and give the reader some sort of a description about what to expect when he or she enters one of those restaurants. WP:NOT tells us that we would not then write a "List of McDonalds restaurant locations" article, because we are not a directory. So why should we list all of the SPUIs in the world, or even all of the SPUIs in a single country?

As a counterpoint, we have an article on the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. That article describes, in more general terms, the concept of that state's highway system. To further expand on it, we have List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan, List of state trunklines in Michigan and Pure Michigan Byway. Those lists are acceptable because they exist to list to other articles, like Interstate 69 in Michigan, U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, M-1 (Michigan highway) and UP Hidden Coast Recreational Heritage Trail.

So to summarize: List of Interstate Highways in Michigan is a compilation and directory of other articles, each on a notable topic. A List of single-point urban interchanges would just be a directly of locations that falls outside of our encyclopedic purposes because individual SPUIs are not considered notable in the overwhelming majority of cases. Imzadi 1979 → 17:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason, I played in this game and I did not start it was to have new users contribute to Wikipedia. You made it game over, now. Sure, McDonalds is commercial. A list of all its restaurants would be WP:NOT. A SPUI, I guess there is not any one on toll roads is not advertising or similar. The list in the article is also too long for me, but indeed, there are States in the US without SPUIs. A summary would be possible with the template of all coordinates. State Routes and Interstates have articles listing major interchanges. This would be a place for such information. An interchange would be relevant if it is the only one or the first of the State each. So do you see a way to bring the relevant part of information of the deleted section return in the project? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a generalist publication, not a specialist work. It also does not attempt to contain all information. This article is about the concept of a "single-point urban interchange". A good article should satisfy the 5 Ws and the H and for an article on SPUIs, those questions would be:

• Who developed the concept?
• What is a SPUI? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
• When was it developed and put into use?
• Where can we see the concept in use?
• Why was it developed?
• How does it differ from other interchanges?

Now, the issue here seems to be how to satisfy the "where" question. We do not need a list of every SPUI for a reader to get the basic idea. A few key examples with a map or diagram showing the interchange is all that is needed. An exhaustive list of every SPUI will not help the reader to understand the concept. Instead, it will be a long list that will be hard to maintain as additional interchanges are built globally. That isn't to say we should not include examples to show the spread across the US or around the world, but the list in the article was attempting to list every single SPUI.

In the comparison between an interchange type (SPUI) and a restaurant (McDonalds), it does not matter that one is a commercial enterprise and the other is not. A "List of single-point urban interchanges" and a "List of McDonalds restaurants" would each be a directory in violation of WP:NOT.

I don't understand your argument about new users and their ability to contribute to Wikipedia. No one is preventing anyone from contributing to the overall encyclopedia or this article. Yes, it might be easier for new editors to insert a missing SPUI on a list, but our purpose is to write coherent articles that educate people, not give them easy tasks to contribute. Imzadi 1979 → 21:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

But, the SPUI ist nearly home in the USA. So without note of usage in the US, the article does not show the real world. The H-questing (no. 6) gets you close to theory finding, if not explicit sourced. It is the different to good articles. In case of the SPUI, we are missing the sources in the article. Anyway, how can we use the already written contributions? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 22:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We do not need lists of the various SPUIs. What we do need is a History section that is longer than two sentences. We know from this article where the first SPUI is located, but what we need is a history section that expands on those sentences to discuss how the concept has spread to other states in the US and other countries. The information about the SPUIs built in Germany in the 1970s should be moved into the History section as an example of the spread of the design to Europe, for example. If we can determine which of the Asian examples was the first, that would be a good detail to also add to the history. Then we could end the section with a simple list of "And as of 2015, SPUIs can be found in in many US states. The interchange design has been used in European locations like Germany and Iceland as well as Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Singapore in Asia." The previous contributions that tried to list all of the SPUIs in North America are pretty much worthless except for any historical facts used in a concise history of the design. Imzadi 1979 → 23:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with the removal of the exhaustive list of examples, I feel that the removal of that content can be handled in a more collegial manner. As we're all likely aware, much content on WP is unfortunately out-of-sync. It would be helpful to explicitly provide the last version of this page containing the full example list, to allow editors to more easily make sure cited prose about individual SPUIs exists in the appropriate road articles. It's also quite conceivable that readers, upon finding this page, might wish to find examples of same. The "What links here" tool, while quite imperfect in the overabundance of links it returns, and probably not well known or used by casual readers, could allow at least some readers to find a list of examples.

These also should have been done at diverging diamond interchange.

Thus... --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, readers will want some examples. However, I work on the "rule of three". Three examples should be enough to illustrate the concept, and the 172 (or so) examples for North America that were listed are well over that count. As I also noted above, we should bring back some examples in appropriate ways, but the full list was excessive. Imzadi 1979 → 19:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The most complete list of SPUIs can be found at this version of the article.

We should check that the appropriate road articles found, among other content, here, contain sourced information about individual SPUIs. --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess the old version is the chance and an open door to get new users first conributions until they become familiar with the wikipedia. It this the honeypot with less wasted time to maintain. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 17:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Our purpose here is to write an encyclopedia. If a new user creates an article on his garage band who hasn't signed a recording contract, that article is deleted. If a new user creates an article on a non-notable gravel road in her hometown, that article gets deleted. When editors, regardless of tenure, add excessive examples to this article, or one like concurrency (road), and the deletion of those excessive examples is still warranted. Imzadi 1979 → 19:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am intrigued...

My section was deleted, then re added and modified? This is very interesting to me... usually all of my modifications are deleted and that is that... anyway, just a random thought... Roketman18 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

List of SPUI: Tulsa OK

I'm pretty sure that these listed here are NOT SPUIs. They are just oddly configured left-exit interchanges. The bridge deck is not oversized like a typical SPUI

These are Inverted SPUIs. Chaswmsday (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)