Talk:Oregon Route 164

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

Contradicts-self tag added in January 2015[edit]

Resolved
 – Additional research clarified the length.

For folks looking for why the contradicts-self tag was added in January 2015, I found the reason in a comment in the page's source: <!--is it 8.39 or 8.90 miles?--> Rocket-Fueled (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the 8.9 miles in the table is a typo and should have been 8.39 miles, as it is shown as 8.39 miles in the other two places in the article. Rocket-Fueled (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket-Fueled, I decided to do some research and it is looking more like 8.9 miles is correct. The only reference link in the article that currently works is this one, which mentions the highway but does not have any information on its length. I was able to find a PDF of the ODOT straight-line map here (I archived it here in case the link goes dead), and it shows a total length of 8.90 miles in the detail. I can't find any reference online that indicates a length of 8.39 miles, so I am inclined to change it to that number (and add the reference, of course). CThomas3 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CThomas3, nice work on the research! However, my reading of the straight-line map gives 8.54 as the length. Note the third label from the end next to the 8.54, it says "(1)END JEFFERSON HWY. 164". Here's a snip from there to show you what I mean. What do you think? Rocket-Fueled (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket-Fueled, I am not an expert at reading these things, so I could be convinced either way. :) I did notice that there was some strange-looking fork at the bottom of the diagram and couldn't really figure out where the highway actually ended. The biggest number was 8.90 miles, but you are absolutely right that it does have an "end" at 8.54 miles. The fact that I didn't see an 8.39 miles was my first clue that the other number was wrong, but I'm good with either of those two. I think your explanation of 8.54 is a good one. CThomas3 (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CThomas3, we are in agreement then. I also found that bit at the bottom confusing. Was the snip helpful for showing how I was reading it? I'll be bold and make the changes to 8.54. Oh, are you good with removing the contradicts-self tag? Rocket-Fueled (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket-Fueled, I am good on both counts! Thank you! CThomas3 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]