Talk:Special route

Merger into this article

To condense all the information that's scattered elsewhere and to prevent the same information from being on the same pages, I say we merge all the different kinds of routes in the US into this one except for Business route and spur route because they are somewhat unique and/or have enough info for their own pages... plus, those are by far the more common. We can have subheadings for the other kinds, but since they are all "auxiliary routes" in the literal sense, we can cover them all here. So, I say this should be the place for all knowledge regarding Alternate routes, Optional routes, Truck routes, Scenic routes, Temporary routes, Loop routes, etc. on the federal, state, and county levels so we don't have to create a dozen pages to find nearly the same information. We can link to the Interstate designation pages. --Triadian (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

banner plate?

A bannered highway is an alternate route or spur designated with a banner plate above (or occasionally below) the route shield...

Fine, but this doesn't explain what a "banner plate" is. A Google search turns up pages dealing with "high-quality slumping and fusing molds" and the 2nd Beijing International Baking Industry Exhibition -- neither of which seem particularly relevant! -- Picapica 10:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Neologism

"Bannered" is a neologism, popularized by Robert Droz on his website: Alternate U S Highways: Bannered Routes. The MUTCD calls these signs "auxiliaries" or "auxiliary signs": Section 2D.12+. Mapsax (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moved, obviously. I'm making other articles consistent. Mapsax (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're going on that, then why was it moved to "Auxiliary U.S. Route"? There are state highway auxiliary/bannered routes as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; I see auxiliary route exists so it would be impossible to move it to that location. However, after noticing that, I see no reason to have a separate page for auxiliary/bannered U.S. Routes and this should probably be merged with auxiliary route. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, not sure why both existed to begin with, merge everything to auxiliary route. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I made an edit to Interstate Highway System about this.... AASHTO refers to 3 digit highways as auxiliary routes. They call business, truck, spur, etc. "special routes". —Rob (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things which I will leave to others are the removal of "BANNERED" in the graphic Image:Banneredhighways.svg, and the name changes of categories: Category:Bannered_Interstate_Highways and Category:Bannered and suffixed U.S. Highways - I would recommend deleting the first category, since it's redundant to List of Business Routes of the Interstate Highway System; the second can stay in my opinion, but of course I've now run across many more articles to move to be consistent.... (By the way, I generaly concur with all the responses so far). Mapsax (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Edited I also need someone to dig out "Bannered" in Template:Infobox_U.S._Route . Mapsax (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I strongly disagree with deleting a category for "redundancy" to a list. State highway categories and lists co-exist, as they should, and I see no reason that the Interstate Business items can't co-exist as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bannered: adj. To carry a banner. To have a banner applied." Maybe the adjectival form of the word is new, but the root isn't and the context is clear. A "bannered route" carries a banner. A simple link on first mention to the appropriate article is sufficient to explain the context. In terms of Interstates, the list articles are "Business routes of Interstate ##" and in terms of US Highways, it is "Bannered routes of U.S. Route ##" since there are more than Business banners applied to US Highways (ALT, BUS, BYP, CITY, HISTORIC, OPT, SCENIC and TOLL). TMK, only bannered every used with Interstates are "Emergency" or "Detour", but aren't officially highways per se. So what's wrong with "bannered"? --Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. Unilaterally moving and mass-editing every road article affected by a proposed change, absent a consensus to do so, even with various WP guidelines to support the various arguments is what started both the Naming Convention wars, the "Great Multiplex Malay of 2007" and the the "Decommission Debate of 2007-08". We should be discussing these issues and hashing them out BEFORE mass article moves and such.

He actually posted it 3 days ago without response. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I was interpreting no response as complicity. Mapsax (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AASHTO uses "special route" on page 2 of [1]. A quick look turns up no uses of "bannered" outside roadgeeks, but I also can't find any uses of "auxiliary route", only "auxiliary sign" (other than Interstates). In fact, the MUTCD says "The BUSINESS (M4-3) auxiliary sign (see Figure 2D-4) may be used to designate an alternate route that branches from a numbered route..." and the same for TRUCK (but not BY-PASS). It also uses "auxiliary sign" for JCT, directions, TO, and END. I will try to figure out what (if anything) DOTs call them. --NE2 23:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything except "special route" and "alternate route". --NE2 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Report: I believe that I changed everything except the text on the respective pages for US-17/23/24/31/60/66, so if a second change is necessary, my edit history for today should be a good approximation of a canonical list. Also note the change of Template:Usban and its related code to Template:Usaux . I also recommend moving this discussion to somewhere in Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways or Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads (although I probably should have done that myself earlier). Mapsax (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This should have been discussed at WT:USH this was an attempt to "sneak in" a consensus at worst, and a poorly thought out discussion and decision at best. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It was simple being bold; unfortunately nobody noticed the edit to this talk page. Spilled milk and all that. --NE2 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article talk page - the place to propose something like that is a talk page related to the project as it spans more than this article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's being bold and there's this. It's not spilled milk. It's making major changes that span many articles without any appreciable warning. No response to a proposed change concerning an active project is not consensus, it is simply a single opinion. If others agreed, with as many USRD editors out there are active, one of use would have chimed in. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF? —Rob (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I gave the possibility of two options. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I could assume that if the original discussion was started on a project talk page, instead of a single article's talk page. Then this talk page was referenced as the consensus to begin edits and page moves all over. It still might have been done in good faith, but the methodology seems to be a little bit more like an end-run around the rest of USRD until someone would notice their watch list filling with edits and page moves. --02:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzadi1979 (talk • contribs)

Course, page moves don't even show up on watchlists... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing a bunch of articles without discussion in a highly visible forum, especially on such a contentious thing such as neologisms, is at best reckless. Being bold is a great way to encourage new contributors but also a great way to encourage drama amongst old contributors when it concerns such a wide-ranging change. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously folks, I think everyone is overreacting just a bit. After all, he did stop making changes once there was a disagreement with what he was doing. Which I do believe is how WP:BRD is suppose to work. Has things gotten so bad around here that we have to ask permission to do things? --Holderca1 ^talk 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

BOLD only exists because of the fact that it's simple to revert most edits if necessary. If you're making widespread changes, that simplicity is gone (and especially in case of page moves, and renaming templates) because takes a lot of effort to undo those. Especially in this case, because there are thousands of edits involved. Even WP:BOLD advocates caution in cases like this. You don't have to 'ask permission' to do everything, but you certainly should get input from other users before you do a significant change like this. Neologisms are a sore subject here anyway, so even more caution is warranted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. I have little experience with project pages, and didn't consider this a major project, just one name change, one which happens to be present on many pages. I ended up doing a majority of edits at once in order to be consistent and not leave two versions of the term in existence. Before embarking on that, I made sure to monitor this page looking for feedback, and there was none, making me believe indifference. It's not as if I'm not patient, since I proposed a similar change at Talk:Reassurance marker#Article name?, which still has not been discussed a month-and-a-half later. As time went on, I got bolder.

As for the "flying under the radar" comment, there was no such intent, as having edited road-related articles for some time now, I've witnessed many discussions within a short time of the initial comments on the talk pages as well as any project pages, and was using this high activity to assume (wrongly, obviously) that my comment would have been read within the three days' period that I gave.

This is not a disaster in my opinion, since finding all of my relevant edits will be easy (another reason for doing them rapid-fire is that they would all show up nearly consecutively in my edit history in case there was a problem) - just using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=2000&title=Special:Contributions&contribs=user&target=Mapsax in conjunction with http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=site:en.wikipedia.org+bannered and/or http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=site:en.wikipedia.org+auxiliary+route should be enough to revert (or change to a third option) all relevant articles. Mapsax (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I still stand by my comments. Also, thousands of edits? He actually made less than a hundred. He didn't just blindly change articles, he posted the issue 3 days in advance of any changes, albeit probably not in the best locations. I still clearly think questioning his motives is not acting in good faith of what his intentions were. I know everyone is a little touchy with everything that has happened in the past. It will all work out better if everyone stays cool. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents... I have to agree with Mapsax that "Bannered Highway" is a neologism. I have maintained my own highways-related websites for more than a decade, have been a "student" of transportation systems for three decades and work alongside transportation planners on a daily basis, and the only place I have ever seen "Bannered Highway" is in conjunction with Robert Droz' website, as noted above. I do not use this terminology on my sites, nor in my edits here on Wikipedia. It certainly isn't a widely known and accepted term by any stretch. Unfortunately, when dealing with such specific road-related features such as these, the "accepted terms" are often obscure due to the nature of the topic. Plus, road-maintaining agencies in different jurisdictions are known to use varying terms for the same things quite often (see discussions regarding "State Route," "State Highway," "Highway," "Route," "State Trunkline," "State Trunk Highway," "Trunk Highway," etc.). Mapsax has also properly pointed out one difficulty here in that the MUTCD and AASHTO don't even agree on a consistent terminolgy here. No offense to Mr. Droz -- I've traded information with him for years -- but if we're looking to stick with official and/or accepted terms, the MUTCD and/or AASHTO (or anything from a state DOT) would immediately trump something derived for a hobbyist website (mine included). CBessert (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No matter which word we pick for this, I'd like to emphasize that there's no need to move the template or rename the parameters. That just creates more work to be done and has no benefit whatsoever (since readers aren't aware that templates even exist, and presumably the reason we're phasing out 'bannered' is to help the readers). Some articles appear to have been be broken for the past week due to the template moves. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Neologism, part 2

So a solution was not found for the first part of the discussion above, but my point still stands that "bannered" is not an appropriate term in this context. Without doing any edits, I will reopen the discussion. Please, if this is more appropriate on another talk page, move it there before discussion ensues. (As above, I'm not sure where the most appropriate place is.) Mapsax (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Except for spurs, they really are all alternate routes. How about merging it with alternate route, and having a see also to spur route? --NE2 10:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That'll be too confusing, because some of them are Alternate routes (note the capital) and some are not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we leave it alone? As is the case in other situations, there isn't an existing word to cover this situation, that's why a new word, or a new usage for another word is created. "Alternate" is only one form of banner applied to highway designations. "Business" is a separate banner used. They aren't the same since there are business loops and business spurs. There may not be a single, widely-used term from the 50 DOTs in place, and in that case, I argue that the status quo should remain. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that there isn't a word for the situation in question, it's that there are too many (see CBessert's comments above), and "banner" is far down the list (i.e. not used by any official entity).

...there isn't an existing word to cover this situation, that's why a new word, or a new usage for another word is created.

From Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people.

Note the comment at the very top of this page, made a year-and-a-half ago, long before the discussion that I started. "Bannered" may be clear to roadgeeks, but that's a very small percentage of WP users.

[continued] Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well—we don't do that here at Wikipedia.

Mapsax (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[Indentation reset by Picapica (talk)]

>> Note the comment at the very top of this page, made a year-and-a-half ago, long before the discussion that I started. "Bannered" may be clear to roadgeeks, but that's a very small percentage of WP users. <<

Thanks for pointing that out, Mapsax! Although I can deduce from the context that "plate" means some kind of (presumably flat) road sign, I'm still not really very much closer to understanding the particular meaning here of "banner" (OED: a long strip of cloth bearing a slogan or design, hung up or carried on poles). There are road signs on this, eastern side of the Atlantic which are (very much technically) known as "flags", but I suspect there's no connection.

www.thebubbler.com ("Wisconsin's Information Source") has:

The "banner plate" was removed to a better design but also had a few major grapic [sic] changes as the site evolved. / on 12-3-98 the banner plate was removed and replaced with another plate. on june 25, 2002 the cow came in to the plate. (Not particularly relevant, I feel.)

My real point is that the employment in very technical senses of words which have different common usages shouldn't feature unexplained in Wikipedia articles unless those technical senses can at least be easily determined elsewhere. Perhaps someone who knows what a "banner plate" is in this specialized road sense would care to post a picture of one here (I have yet to discover one myself.. !) -- Picapica (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This photo has two banner plates. First it is along BUS M-28. The "BUSINESS" part of this sign assembly is a banner plate that makes the regular M-28 shield (that diamond sign) into BUS M-28. The second banner plate is the "TO" over the CR 480 marker. Other banner plates exist for ALTERNATE, BYPASS, CONNECTOR, TRUCK versions of highways, as well as the TO, END(S) and cardinal directions (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST, INNER, OUTER, etc).

Essentially a banner plate is any smaller sign that modifies the main markers in a sign assembly to convey another meaning. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, Imzadi. A picture, as they say, speaks a thousand words! That image could probably usefully go in the article itself (or in another, referenced from here, dealing with United States road signs in general). -- Picapica (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the basis for calling those "banners"? Other than one website, the term is non-existent in that context. Mapsax (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The main reason that this page's name needs to change is that they weren't always "banners". In the early days of U.S. routes, terms like "City Route" were placed smack dab on the shield itself... so in the name of history, it is a neologism. --Triadian (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary

So, since the conversation seems to have died down, and this is a LOT to take in and read, can someone summarize the above discussion as concisely as possible, and just list what solutions have been offered? That would be so helpful. --MPD ^{T / C} 20:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think "special route" is perhaps a superior word choice and less of a neologism or roadfan jargon for most of the indicated types. However, there may be a bit of an inconsistency in the current description as a prefixed and/or suffixed route that has a direct relationship to a route of the same number (sometimes known as the "mainline route" or "parent route") with how a scenic route is typically understood. The scenic route article currently limits itself to officially designated US highway routes -- which may be a somewhat US-centric presumption and may not be consistent with what many people think of as scenic routes. I venture most people would consider scenic routes to be more along the lines of National Scenic Byways and various similar state designations, in which the scenic route is an overlay rather on the primary route(s).older ≠ wiser 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I started the scenic route article and it's intended to be an article covering every definition of "scenic route, byway, etc" with links to German scenic highways and the US National Scenic Byways. Yes, as the article sits now, it's US-centric, but thats because I, nor anyone else had gotten around to expanding the article. It had an "expand" tag on it. I don't know where it went. --Triadian (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ways to improve this article

Anybody got any ideas on how to improve this article? The behavior section might could use a little rephrasing. --Triadian (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference between supplemental route and a special route

Just to get it on the record, there is one fundamental difference between supplementary/child/etc routes and special routes. It's hard to explain because the terminology is often confused and I know of no good synonyms. Special routes have the same number as the parent route that it connects to, i.e. Alternate US 58, Georgia Loop 10, and Business Interstate 46. Supplementary routes, while many connect to a mainline route, do not have the same number as the parent, and are therefore not special routes. Child routes (under the most common definition) are the same way. For example, US 117 is NOT a special route of US 17 even though it is a spur of that route. Another example would be Beltway 8... it is NOT a special route because there is no regular Texas State Highway 8 that it connects to (in fact that route, is in another part of the state). In the same manner, the Nebraska Link, Spur, and Recreation Highways are NOT special routes. --Triadian (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful about limiting instances of these routes to "the only ones in the world", etc. For example, I was able to find other instances for both loop routes and emergency routes. From now on, there should probably only be examples listed, with no mention of completeness of the respective list. Mapsax (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blatant bias

This article has a pretty blatant bias towards US roads, so I added a globalize template. ListroiderBob 02:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do other countries use Alternate X, Business X, Bypass C, etc type nomenclature on their highways? If they don't, it's not biased. Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. , per WP:Signature (specifically WP:SIGLINK), you need to link some part of your signature to your user page, your user talk page or both. Imzadi 1979 → 02:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any sources about other countries using Auxillary routes in their road system, such as business A-1 or something in Europe. I don't see how the globalize template applies here? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 15:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively the article could be renamed to U.S. Special Route. Thoughts? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 15:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Loop 1604 in San Antonio

The article says that Loop 1604 is a "rare" example where a loop doesn't intersect a parent route. This is very common with Texas state highways. Typing in Loop 1 into the Wiki search bar gives Loops 1, 153, 105, 1910, 1604, 151, 118, 181 and 13, all in Texas. To me, the statement is misleading. It might be rare for US loop routes to not intersect their parents, it's rare for Texas state Loop routes to even have parents. I contend that this statement should be removed. Jamesfett (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"Named route" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Named route. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)