Talk:U.S. Route 50 in Nevada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleU.S. Route 50 in Nevada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 8, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 5, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
March 29, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Rationale for "high" importance[edit]

While I realize that U.S. routes are typically sorted into the "mid" category, I think that this article should be "high" importance, due to U.S. 50 in Nevada's prominence as "the loneliest road in America". It's been featured in numerous articles, has an association formed specifically about it, and has survival guides and certificates as proof you really did clinch it. —Scott5114↗ 20:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewriting needed[edit]

The section that talks about the history of the route isn't written very well. Does anyone mind if I make some major corrections on it? The facts are just scattered and not in a certain order.-Mm555 20:24, 10 September 2007

No doubt it needs work, as do the state articles for Utah and Colorado. I've tried, but its not easy to condense the complicated history of this route into a few paragraphs, and have it all still be interesting. Give it a shot. I've also debated listing the 17 summits with their elevations, but not sure if that is appropriate. Davemeistermoab 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please do note that some facts that are in that section right now, may not be there, as I may forget them, think they arn't important or incorrect, or "I couldn't fit them it!" type deal. Well, here it goes. -Mm555 17:01, 11 September 2007 (PST)
I tried(very overwhelmed). Hopefully it's a little better. The rerouting fact that I added/changed, if someone could verify that for me, that would be great. I know it was rerouted from it's original 1926 route to Salt Lake City, but I can't remember where I read it. Also the time when it was rerouted to Salt Lake City, I can't remember the year it was rerouted and the time it was rerouted again to it's original present-day route. If you change anything, I like to know what you changed, not that I can't possibly disagree with you as I have some doubt about what I wrote, but I feel more comfortable knowing what changes have been made. Also (to Davemeistermoab) if you still want the elevations I've listed them they are as follows: Robinson Summit, El 7539; Little Antelope Summit, El 7438; Pancake Summit, El 6492; Pinto Summit, El 7350; Hickison Summit, El 6546; Bob Scotts Summit, El 7195; Austin Summit, El 7484; New Pass Summit, El 6348. And there it is straight from the "Official State Map" just in case you want them. :) Thanks!-Mm555 17:36, 11 September 2007 (PST)

As currently written it is not correct. The 1926 routing may have had a discontinuity from Ely Nevada to Thistle Utah (sources disagree). Then the route was connected via Salt Lake in 1928-1930's (depending on source, but either way long before the 50's), it was moved to the route now numbered US6 in the 50's (through Delta, utah to Spanish Fork, etc.). It was re-routed in the 70's again to its current route. Sources: http://www.geocities.com/usend5059/End050/end050.htm Talks about the discontinuity. Though this is the only source that mentions it. I've generally found that "mapguy" (the owner of this site) has done his homework, and haven't found holes in his data yet. http://members.aol.com/utahhwys/041-060.htm#rte050 Talks about post route changes, doesn't mention discontinuity. Note Dan Stober's pages are excellent overall. But I have found errors in dates and numbers in his work. I wouldn't take these years literally unless a 2nd source is found. http://www.rockymountainroads.com/us-050_nv.html This is an excellent site, but contradicts some items in Mapguy's pages.

Also I see you've worked on US395. Did US 395 really go to the Mexican Border? Everything I've read the terminus was in downtown San Diego. Almost, but not quite to the border. Davemeistermoab 01:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Did some reseach to verify, you're right, it ended in San Diego. I made the correction on that page already. It was US 101, sorry about that, my mistake. All this time I thought it was US 395. Anyway the sources you found, they might be correct. But with reality, it's hard to find what is fact and what is a misconseption. Not to say that they're wrong, I have no right to say that because I don't know too many facts about the whole rerouting thing with the highways myself because, let's face it, I've learned that there has been so much rerouting with the US Highway System that I think it's almost impossible to find anything. Either that or I haven't been looking in the right places, but that's the thing with the internet. I think in some cases, books are a better deal. But even they have some downsides, as with anything. Anyway, just found another site, http://www.route50.com/history.htm, not that I think it will help any, but its a valid source, right? If I have time I'll hunt for more.Mm555 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose or list?[edit]

WP:MOS makes it clear the prose is preferred over lists. The route description section of this article is currently mostly in list format. Two editors (myself and Mm555) have tried and apparently given up on trying to write this in prose. The problem is there's so much named, but relatively unknown stuff along this highway. Interstate 80 in Nevada is much easier, even though it's the same length of highway. Roughly half I-80's length can be summarized by "follows the Humboldt river". But US 50 doesn't follow anything. More of a seemingly unending series of mountains and desert basins broken up by an occasional town. Could some prose expert give us a hand here? What should we do? Any assistance would be most appriciatedDavemeistermoab (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, I think that following the guidelines is a good idea to ensure consistent and professional articles. However, this particular issue seems to be difficult enough that two editors have tried and not come up with something that they liked. In that case, perhaps leaving it as a list is the best thing to do. In the end, clarity is the most important thing. I've resorted to lists in other articles before I saw your comment. I felt that prose, in those particular circumstances, made the information needlessly difficult to follow and uninteresting. There's no point in that. Pcp125 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Because of the list content here for cities, passes and points of interest - plus the lack of a junction list, I am very skeptical about giving this a B-class rating. A second opinion is requested.  — master sonT - C 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I retract my request. As mentioned above, I am requesting help to convert the list into prose. I'm willing to do it, but need some suggestions. I've tried myself and given up.Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for History[edit]

Links for SR-2 redirect to US-50. While the two share a common history for some sections, one section of SR-2 was never part of US-50. Adding references to SR-2's history will probably make the history of US-50 long and confusing. Referring to the part that never was US-50 doesn't make sense. I suggest creating a separate page for SR-2 and cross-referencing it with US-50. I can supply the information for SR-2. That will allow both routes to be properly addressed without making either one needlessly long or confusing. Opinions? Pcp125 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be opposed to creating a separate article for SR2. They are about 85% the same. My opinion would be to get the US 50 in Nevada article into shape first (it's come a long way, but still needs a lot of work). Then, if the article is deemed good but long, break off a section into SR2. The Nevada Highways project has WAY to many stub articles to be considering splitting articles at this time. IMO.Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a picture you all might want[edit]

Back in August of 1995 I was a truck driver and broke down out between Ruth and that next little town, and had to wait 8 hours for a tow truck to come from Carson City. During my wait one truck and two cars passed by where I sat. I took a pic of my truck sitting on the side of the road, from behind, with safety triangles laid out, and the empty desert all around: http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/akqj9/us50breakdownaug95.jpg I don't want to just stick it in the article because I'm new around here and not aware of all the related policies.

That pic is rather low res, but I can rescan if needed. Might also need to be brightened which I'm not really qualified to do. Anyway, if it's wanted let me know. Truckerbomb (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truckerbomb,

What you can do is create an account on Wikimedia Commons (just use your same name as you use for Wikipedia is fine). Upload the image there. Be sure you state the terms of you giving this photo to wikimedia (i.e. giving it away to public domain, attribution required, etc.) Then don't forget to link it to the category:U.S. Route 50. Then it will be accessible not only to the english wikipedia, but the French, German, etc. You can use this as a guide: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Loniestroad.jpg Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead should be a summary of the rest of an article, not a cut-and-paste of another paragraph in the article. Bold text should only occur in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Also, the presence of italicized text should be avoided (but I don't know if I can cite a specific MOS point on that).
Cut out material from the lead, and changed so the first instance of "Nevada State Route 2" is bolded, not the 2nd. However, IMO "Loneliest Road in America" should be emphasized in some fashion, either bolded or italicized. Italics are covered by WP:MOS#Italics, however, I'm not sure after reviewing this, which is more appropriate. Davemeistermoab (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've thought about this some more. I think bold is more appropriate than italics, as a synonym and target of a redirect.Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    "This portion of the highway traverses Spring Valley which is part of a controversial plan to pipe water to Las Vegas." Needs a comma if the sentence stays, but I would rather drop it because explaining the plan would require a lot of time and space not related to US 50, I imagine. "Some people have disputed that US 50 still deserves the tile of the loneliest road in America." While this is cited, I don't think that particular point carries any weight for what is largely a symbolic designation, not one backed by numbers.
Agree on the "Spring Valley" statement. Not so sure on the "Some people dispute", while US-50's nickname is a symbolic designation, it's hard to refute "3 towns in a span of 409 miles" is a qualifier for a lonely road. While this was the only reliable source I could find that challenges US 50's nickname, there are several roadgeek and nevada "blog" websites that attempt to debunk the nickname using various means. I feel it deserves some mention, but admit as presently worded may sound like a tangential detail. I'll think about it and see if I can improve this.Davemeistermoab (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to these and I hope this is better, advise if you have any objections.Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    "However, its reputation for loneliness is merited." Not NPOV - show, don't tell. :-D
Statement removed. Davemeistermoab (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  3. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Let me know what you think of the above. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I do agree with your suggestions, although a few caught me by surprise and I had to think about them. One question for you. The bolded terms are names that redirect to this page (Nevada State Route 2, Nevada State Route 7, etc.). I was under the impression that these should be bolded in their first instance, even if only mentioned in the history section. However the MOS is vague on this (unless I missed something). I have another article I'm getting ready to submit for FA nomination (Interstate 70 in Utah). In its current form, it has one such instance (Utah State Route 4 redirects to that page, only mentioned in the history section, and first instance is bolded). This article has passed multiple peer reviews, GA nomination, and A class nomination without anybody mentioning this. So I'm confused. I understand your take, but do you have any examples or guidelines that clarify what to do here? Know of any FA's where this was brought up in the nomination process? Thanks Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look in WP:LEAD, nowhere does it forbid the usage of boldface outside of the lead. WP:Redirect indicates that readers should know why they are being redirected to a page when they didn't search for it. All of the MI articles I've written where a designation has be replaced by another and that former designation redirects to the newer one have bolding on first mention. I've seen it many other places as well. I say it should be left alone. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, at the time of the review Nevada State Route 2 was mentioned in the lead, but bolded in the history section. This was sloppy editing on my part, in fact I only just a few minutes ago noticed it. It is now fixed. I have left bolding on the the other Nevada State Routes that redirect to this page not mentioned in the lead for now, let's see how this plays out.Davemeistermoab (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had more than my share of sloppy editing, so no big deal. I think I sent the wrong link over... from MOS:BOLD...
Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses:
  • Table headers
  • Definition lists (example: David E. Kelley)
  • Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats
Short on time at the moment, so if you have any further questions let me know! —Rob (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) What I have done is changed the lead to state that US 50 in NV was derived from many former Nevada State Routes, primarily SR 2. Hopefully, this makes it unnecessary to bold the other Nevada state routes that redirect here mentioned only in passing in the history section. However, to Imzadi's point this may need some further discussion. I'm seeing a LOT of road articles done this way (bold items in the history section that are redirect terms). While this may or may not be the right thing to do, the result of this discussion should be brought to the attention of WP:USRD as this seems to be common practice over there, including in my own contributions.Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... I think the concerns for this particular article have been addressed, but I'll start a discussion regarding MOS:BOLD over there. —Rob (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Condition/Safety[edit]

How navigable is this road under adverse weather conditions these days? Does it get regular attention and repair from the DOT? Is it safe to travel during the snowstorms common in Winter (does it get regularly cleared, etc.), or does it shut down whenever there's heavy snow until it melts? The Jade Knight (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: US 50 near Lake Tahoe - As the only four-lane highway in Nevada that leads to Lake Tahoe, NDOT generally puts high emphasis on keeping US 50 cleared as much as possible during snowstorms. It often sees chain controls, but usually doesn't close unless it's a really bad storm. The other routes leading to the lake (SR 208 & SR 431) are two-lane roads passing higher peaks, and thus tend to close more often than US 50 during inclement weather. --Ljthefro (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Cave Rock Tunnel[edit]

The information from Cave Rock Tunnel can easily be covered in this article. Dough4872 02:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Standard merge/split rules apply here. –Fredddie™ 02:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as long as it's done well and in a manner that doesn't harm this article's FA status. I would not be opposed to splitting it back out in the future should much more information become available. -- LJ ↗ 03:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if this is merged, be advised that one of the sources on the Cave Rock Tunnel (City Conceriege) does not have any author credentials listed. The article appears to be properly researched, but may not meet FA standards for verifiability. Dave (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a replacement source that could be used (as well as could be used to expand the article, this has more detail) [1] Dave (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mileposts in junction list[edit]

I have a question: how are the mileposts signed along the highway, if they are signed? The reason I ask is that this article is the only FA from USRD that hasn't been converted to the junction templates. I could convert what is there right now to them, but the footnotes and double numbers will cause problems in the future. There is a change coming to the junction list templates that will add a second distance column. This second column will contain the metric equivalents of the milepost value, but any footnotes or other coding besides a single number for the milepost will produce errors after the changeover.

A few comments, but it's not WP:OR to use simple math to calculate the US-50-equivalent milepost from US-395 or US-6 milepost data. Likewise, it's not OR to use simple math to convert county-specific mileposting data into state-wide data, unless there are signs along the highway that visibly show the distance to drivers that reset at county lines. If any signs along the road aren't meant to be ready by drivers and are only for DOT usage, then I'd disregard them and convert the table to use state-wide mileage. Imzadi 1979 → 21:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mileposts (where posted consistently) are the same style as California postmiles in that they are not really meant for navigation and panels in the field only reflect county-wide mileage. Nevada has no known publicly-available sources for complete milepost data, and the only exact data that can be determined comes from general milepost info added to maps in sources not meant for this purpose. Generally I leave the milepost data off if I can't get an exact source; Dave chose to try to complete the information with GoogleMaps--likely because the article was going to FA and would've had some scrutiny if that column wasn't filled in.
As far as converting mileage, I don't think that is the best idea for overlaps and situations like this--I prefer to see the actual data. For the record, I sure hope the metric conversion thing isn't a required change, as I believe the column is not necessary at all. I'm all for templatizing these tables though, and have converted quite a few Nevada articles already. -- LJ ↗ 09:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "metric thing" will likely be required; we reached a tenuous compromise with regards to the required table footer, but I can see that such a compromise won't last in the long-term, and I'm trying to be proactive in dealing with it before Tony1 and others make it an issue again. (Plus, with the way the template coding works, the template will handle the conversions for us. Tony1 and Co. only begrudingly accepted the footers, but if we implement the second column, we'll have their full support.) In dealing with concurrencies, M-46's junction list contains the exits where it follows US 131 using M-46-equivalent mileposts even though the freeway is mileposted and exit-numbered for US 131. Listing the US 131 mileposts would look odd because the numbers will take a jump, and without listing the MP at the start and end of the concurrency, it would give the reader no frame of reference on how far apart those exits are in relation to M-46. M-28 and US 41 each use their equivalent mileages for the 59-mile concurrency because they'd run backwards to each other. (Of course, only freeways in Michigan and US 2 have posted mile markers, so for anything else, it is all based off the MDOT maps.) In short, my opinion is to calculate the equivalent mileposts for the subject highway to simplify the table for readers. Imzadi 1979 → 20:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I've been extremely busy lately, and only logging on for a minute or two every couple of days. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. LJ's theory is correct. Information on NDOT's website currently only lists the milage at key points along the route. Knowing I would get "dinged" for having a table that was mostly empty, I tried to fill in the blanks using Google Maps the best I could. I'm not exactly proud of it, and am more than willing to change to a better method, if one exists. There is one key difference between California postmiles and "Nevada mileposts", but I agree with LJ that they are essentially the same system. California still uses a 1964 survey as a baseline for all mileposts and attempts to shoehorn re-alignments and milepost equations for the numerous changes made to the highway system since then. Near as I can tell NDOT periodically re-mileposts highways and milepost equations are temporary phenomenon. Although I don't know this for a fact; I'm gathering that is the case as I've seen US395 be remileposted at least twice since I've moved to the Reno area as the new sections of the freeway alignment are opened to traffic. Dave (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I converted the table to templates. In the short term, the footnotes have disappeared in a few places, and this is only temporary. There is supposed to be a |mile_ref= parameter in the template since {{ONint}} has a |km_ref= equivalent, but it doesn't seem to work... yet. I will get this corrected ASAP. Imzadi 1979 → 05:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now that the parameter has been correctly added, it works. Imzadi 1979 → 05:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

The Shoe Tree lives! I have a photo of the new sign "New Shoe Tree" and of the tree. Joan McHale (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a new section. If Fallon to Austin is a section, Austin to Eureka should a section because Eureka is bigger than Austin, has more people and jobs, and the distances and landscape are about the same: wide valley/mountain pass. Joan McHale (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bot undid my edits. Is anyone working on this article? Is there a VIP in the house? Eureka needs a population # update. --Joan McHale (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Joan McHale. It appears that ClueBot undid your edits because you left working notes in the article. I know you meant well, but US 50 in Nevada is a Featured article, which means it's among the best articles on Wikipedia. Lots of editors and bots keep a close eye on the FAs, so when something like "add General Molly and Salt Tower text.............." is added to a FA, you can be sure it will be removed. However, don't lose hope! If you have an updated population for Eureka and can cite it, please correct it! –Fredddie™ 00:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was cut off in mid-edit and didn't know how to fix it. I keep getting the "Do you want to leave this page" message. If I say "no," nothing happens; if "yes," I drop the page. So the population number for Eureka did not get updated, and no additional section, nothing major, but all decent verifiable info and as a Nevadan I don't like to see some of my favorite places get the short shrift. I'm going to stop editing and read more info on how to Wikipedia. --Joan McHale (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are having that issue. That warning is usually invoked when accidentally clicking a link that would direct you away from the page you are editing. But if this is on a mobile browser it could be anything. The safest thing to do is to copy the sections you would like to modify to your userpage (or any sandbox page), make your changes there, and once ready, copy that text back to this article. As Fredddie says, because this article has been reviewed and ranked as part of the featured article process, there will be more scrutiny applied than, say some random state highway article. Cheers, Dave (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 10:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked LJ ↗ 17:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 13:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessing[edit]

I don't see how this article is a featured status. I'd say we demote this article to A-class. Kevon kevono (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 20:30 (PT)[reply]

The above comments won't change anything. IFF you want do get this reassessed, Kevon kevono, there's a process at WP:FAR. The first step is to outline how this article is deficient as compared to the FA criteria here on the talk page. Then after a few week, if there isn't any action to fix those concerns, then you can open the review at WP:FAR. Assuming it goes through both stages there and is delisted, the article would be reassessed as a B-Class article. (FAs lose any previous A or GA status upon promotion, so they have to be repromoted from B-Class through the normal review processes for those levels.)
In short, you need to back your statement above with specifics because we can't just demote the article that way. Imzadi 1979 → 05:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my comments on user talk. Dave (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing I can find that is a definite issue is the auto link checker has identified a source that has been dead for a year (almost to the day!). [2]. However, that _shouldn't_ be that tough to find a new source. I'll start on that now. Dave (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well for the purposes of finding a replacement source, it was easy. However, the search uncovered a more difficult issue to address. The Nevada Commission on Tourism's website (which is used extensively as a source) has been redesigned since this article was written, and all of the official travel guides (including the one dedicated to US 50) are still available on line, but buried and now flash based. It appears the intent is to encourage people to register with the site first, although I was able to bypass the registration page and access the guides in pdf format. Dave (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately it looks like the above bot edit found snapshots for most of them. Thank goodness for properly working bots =-) Dave (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding of distances for junctions[edit]

Per MOS:UNCERTAINTY – "The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not 41 and 47.4 percent), unless different precisions are actually intended." In this article the junctions table has decimal places to the 10ths, 100ths, and 1000ths – 0.0, 0.00, and 0.000. (The vast majority of miles are by 10ths.) Also, the exemplar templates at WP:RJUNCTL is consistent with the MOS. That is, all of the distances have the same number of decimal places in the different examples. This article as a FA, should follow the MOS and exemplars by rounding the distances. – S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with this article, and unfortunately it can't be fixed right now. The official Nevada state log has two to three digits of precision (i.e. 1.234mi). Where possible the NDOT log is the preferred source. However, US 50 was re routed in late 2017, and the official log on NDOT's website hasn't been updated to reflect this. What is done right now is the official log is used where possible, and where not possible the rest is filled in with Google's distance logging tool, which is only accurate to .1 miles. It's not ideal certainly, but until the records catch up with reality, I'm not sure what else we can do. From what I can tell you are proposing that we "dumb down" the figures cited to NDOT's logs to .1mi to match the Google generated figures. I can certainly understand that. My preferred solution is we live with the mismatch in precision for now, and as soon as NDOT releases the next update to their logbook, we get rid of the Google figures for official NDOT ones. Dave (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Needlessly repeating the NDOT figures to the 1/100 or 1/1000 of a mile is simply repeating WP:USELESS information. However, providing WP:SUMMARYSTYLE rounded figures is—doing so gives the reader an idea of how long particular road segments are. Also, the overly precise data conflicts with WP:IINFO. What WP reader is going to pull out their GPS device or smartphone and correlate the numbers they find in WP to particular locations? (None, I would hope.) The article can be fixed by following the guidance I cited above, and round the numbers to achieve consistency. – S. Rich (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'd do one of two things: round off (and leave the original figures in hidden comments), or leave it all alone. In the near future when NDOT releases the updated source, we'll revise the article to include consistent precision as well as accurate figures, restoring the original numbers in the process where appropriate.
@Srich32977: I'm not the only one who has used the RJL in a Wikipedia article to judge distances and locations while traveling, so the data is not useless nor unused in the real world. Additionally, "summary style" doesn't mean rounding numbers; it means splitting detail out of one article into another new article, and leaving behind a summary, all in a bid to prevent individual articles from growing to an unwieldy length. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with Imzadi's suggestion of rounding off the NDOT figures to match the precision of the Google figures, but leaving the "real" numbers in a comment, so that when the updated logs come out everything can be restored easily. Dave (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I'll add that the reason the milesposts in Carson City are blank is the Google just barely (as in within the past 2 weeks) updated their map to show the new routing (they still don't have satellite or street view yet), so while it is possible to add those values today, that is a new development. Two weeks ago we literally had nothing to use. Dave (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My (reverted) edit was simply being realistic and helpful to the reader. More importantly, it comported with the MOS. WP articles need not contain the false precision of road distance figures accurate to 5.28 feet (0.001 mile or 63.36 inches). Of course NDOT can publish such precise data because surveyors and GPS can detect "exact" distances. But for our purposes such precision is not encyclopedic or justified. Indeed, such detail is contrary to attribute 4 of WP:FACR which says "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. [emphasis added]" Since Google gives us tenths of a mile, we ought to live with and present this practical data. – S. Rich (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no false precision here. False precision is when one lists a measured figure in a way that implies more accuracy than the measurement technique supports. If NDOT has reliably measured the length down to the angstrom, it is not false precision for Wikipedia to report it. As an example of where this has passed muster before, U.S. Route 491 has also been featured on the main page, and nobody brought this up. The difference there is all 3 states involved in that case have published route logs with precision down to 0.001 mile. However, I do agree with you that having some distances listed as 0.001, 0.01, and 0.1 in the same table presents issues with both presentation and hints that the measurements were not properly made. But all measurements are reported with no more precision than a reliable source presents. I'm not arguing with you that it may be appropriate to have the entire table rounded to 0.1 for now, and wouldn't object to the change. My lone request is I agree with Imzadi that if the full figure is preserved in a comment, that would make future article maintenance easier. Dave (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the NDOT figures constitute false precision. Rather, the precision to within 5 feet in the table is "overprecision, fake precision, misplaced precision [or] spurious precision" and is NOT justified in an encyclopedia. The best way to handle this is for WikiProject Roads to come up with an MOS that says "Tables with distances should be precise to 0.1 mile/km." and nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, not fact. --Rschen7754 02:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you believe all of this just became moot [3]? Maybe seeing this discussion spurred NDOT into action ;). Guess what I'll be working on tomorrow. Dave (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's not entirely moot, as this update is still missing several junctions. But it will certainly allow this table to be improved. For those curious, this update FINALLY has stats on Interstate 11, so we can also move that article from speculation to fact as well.Dave (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am assembling a Straight line diagram from both prior data and the newly revised NDOT handbook. I hope to have it finished today. The above mentioned NDOT update is a mixed blessing. The 2018 edition clears up the longstanding issue with Carson City not having any mileposts listed. I now have every junction in CC down to 3 digits of precision if we want to to that. However, most other counties remain with the older figures listed, with just one or two digits of precision. What I'm leaning towards (at least initially) is to have at least each county listed with a consistent number of digits of precision. This then leaves Srich's comment about how many digits of precision are practically useful (which I suspect this part of the discussion should be moved to WT:HWY). The mandated tachometer for all vehicles in the USA is accurate to .1 miles (or .1 km). I'm guessing that's where the "it's good enough" comment came from. However both Nevada and California have mileposts accurate to .01 miles on major junctions, bridges etc., and these are intended for public consumption. I.E. if someone calls 911 to report an emergency and the dispatch asks for the nearest milepost, they will get a figure of 12.34. So there's at least two states that feel a need to .01 mile accuracy. With modern GPS's this level is also possible at the consumer level. I'll grant you that the average public does not possess the means to measure long distances with .001 accuracy, but again many states do publish route logs to this accuracy, even if that accuracy was computed for a niche audience. The answer IDk. However, certainly as I mentioned above with U.S. Route 491 I don't think we should round down when all states are consistent and reliable with 3 significant digits. Dave (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Moabdave:: How are you assembling a straight line diagram? What data are you using? The NDOT State Maintained Highways book and district milepost map doesn't give enough detail for individual junctions, and NDOT hasn't published the milepost book for quite some time (and it never gave every junction's milepost anyway). If there's an easily available reliable source, I'd be interested in using it to update a lot of Nevada's junction lists... -- LJ ↗ 19:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't know of any more sources other than those you've listed. I do have past editions of some, and some editions have more figures than others. Unfortunately, with the exception of Carson City, at least every county has at least one junction that doesn't have a mileage figure on either the SMBook, or the two mileage maps you mention. So it looks like if we're going to be consistent, it will still be down to .1 mile accuracy, as that's the best I can get from either Google Maps or Benchmark Maps. What sucks, I have the county total mileage figures to 3 digits of accuracy for every county but White Pine. The current edition SMBook is missing the figure at the junction in Ely, where US 50 mileposts change from US 50 distance to US 6 distance. Prior editions have the figure, but only have it to 2 digits. If they only had that figure I could at least get the county mileage figures consistent. This sucks! ;) Did you notice the new SMBook has stats for I-11, down to 3 digits? So there's one article we can dramatically improve using the new SMBook at least.Dave (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed I-11 in the new SMH book, but it has some issues (the stated endpoints of I-11 vs I-515 don't line up, the Hoover Dam Bypass portion is still cataloged as US 93, and US 93 & 95 are not yet fully updated to new alignment figures, the Boulder City map is not fully accurate, etc.). So I'm hesitant to use it for updating the I-11 article and will likely wait until things are cleaned up in a later edition. -- LJ ↗ 20:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't spend too much time on the Clark County section, but did notice the figures for I-11 weren't consistent. From first glance, it appears that at least one engineer has assumed that I-515 will be redesignated I-11 south of the junction with I-15.Dave (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain why Nevada junction list mileages start over at county lines? It's not wrong to do the math and have a running mileage total like most other states. –Fredddie™ 21:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both Nevada and California do it. I don't know why. But what's even more strange, also in both states, is exit numbers are based on state wide mileage. The only difference, is Nevada's Interstate highways are dual mileposted with both countywide and state wide mileposts. However, only the county wide mileposts are published in the logbooks. If I were to venture a guess, it's because there are counties in both NV and CA that are bigger than most states on the east coast. But that same argument applies to other states (Arizona, Utah, Montana) that use statewide miles. Dave (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MDOT's maps for Michigan give mileposts that reset at county lines. Sometimes they also reset at intermediate points. WisDOT/MnDOT logs reset at regional lines if one is looking at a regional log. (Statewide logs do exist that are continuous.) On the basis of simple/uncontroversial arithmetic, we can compute the statewide measurements. Why aren't we doing the math for NV? Is it because we don't have the mileposts for the county lines, or can't derive them? Imzadi 1979 → 22:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the need. In both NV and CA, the physical signed mileposts also reset at county lines. So what is here in the table matches what is signed in the field. So the converse is true, if someone wants statewide milage, they can sum them. Just like if someone is doing a cross country trip they can sum the mileposts from each state rather than expecting the wikipedia article will have nationwide mileposts. Dave (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's the missing piece. Imzadi 1979 → 22:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike many other state DOTs, NDOT has not made anything like straight line diagrams or a comprehensive milepost log for its highways publicly available, so Nevada articles have listed mileposts based on what we've been able to verify/derive from sources available. The State Maintained Highways book catalogs highway lengths to three decimal places, their old milepost books (no longer published) and some milepost maps specify to two decimal places, and other maps go to one decimal place or whole number precision. (Note that mileposts out in the field go to two decimal places.) All of these sources, however, have the flaw that they tend to not specify a milepost value at every junction. Thus, the inconsistency between sources introduces inconsistency in decimal places given in the junction lists. If there was a comprehensive milepost source available, this would be a non-issue.
Furthermore, Nevada closely follows the California postmile practice of resetting field mileposts at county lines (except NDOT occasionally remeasures/reposts to avoid letter prefixes). And in the last few years, NDOT has begun installing larger county-based milepost panels out in the rural areas to better aid the motoring public in determining their location (except on interstates, which use MUTCD-style statewide reference panels more prominently than the concurrent county-based milepost panels). Thus, the Wikipedia junction tables for Nevada's state/US routes should still use county-based mileage rather than "doing the math". ("Doing the math" is also cumbersome and introduces other issues due to the inconsistency issue mentioned above.) -- LJ ↗ 09:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile back at the ranch.... Currently the article has the most resolution supported by the sources while keeping the same consistency in each cell. I know this looks tacky but what is best? consistent within columns, consistent within county grouping, or just leave it as is? It is consistent at the city sub-group level, but that is co-incidence. Dave (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I raised the issue of uncertainty and inconsistent precision of the Major intersections table as one of WP:MOS. Seems though, that editors are more interested in the 5 foot road intervals. So, it may be better to raise the issue as an WP:FAR concern. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_50_in_Nevada&oldid=1205806913"