Roads Go Ever On

[thekohser]

All this roads talk seems to be

[Jim]

All this roads talk seems to be

Absolutely. Where's the "top contributor" in road 503, or whatever it was? That was never going to be right. Silly.

Still, I don't think saying will rid us of the road writers. They're made of much sterner stuff than that.

[Vigilant]

Road projects ARE the ultimate vandalism.

Reams and reams an dreams of useless text accompanied by pointless blurry pictures from inside a sad, shabby car...

Add several OCD dingbats to the equation with Article White Knight syndrome and you've got a malignant boil under each and every glorified deer path in the country.

[Jim]

Road projects ARE the ultimate vandalism.
Reams and reams an dreams of useless text accompanied by pointless blurry pictures from inside a sad, shabby car...
Add several OCD dingbats to the equation with Article White Knight syndrome and you've got a malignant boil under each and every glorified deer path in the country.

It's funny. I was raised in England, and I never cared much about "missing a turn", because you could always "take the next left". Took me years to get used to the fact that you can't, down here.

And yeah - dingbats, the lot of them.

[Poetlister]

There are at least two articles on sections of a B road: Abbey Road, London (T-H-L) "is part of the B507 road" as is Lisson Grove (T-H-L), though the latter article omits to mention this. There is no article on the whole road.

[Johnny Au]

There are at least two articles on sections of a B road: Abbey Road, London (T-H-L) "is part of the B507 road" as is Lisson Grove (T-H-L), though the latter article omits to mention this. There is no article on the whole road.

It is for the same reason why Bloor Street (T-H-L) and Danforth Avenue (T-H-L) are separate articles, even though it is the same road in Toronto (just with different names for different sections).

[thekohser]

But what does any of that have to do with Creative Vandalism?

Maybe this thread would be better, and rename it to "Roads"?

What do you say, Moderators?

[Jim]

Indeed, the roadsters themselves glory in the uselessness of their articles.

A link from that essay took me with 2 clicks to:List of unused highways in Georgia (U.S. state) (T-H-L)

It's... astonishing...
The first sentence is

An unused highway may reference a highway or highway ramp that was partially or fully constructed but was unused[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] or later closed.[10][11][12]

Yes folks, that's 12 "citations" for a sentence saying that an unused highway is a highway that is not, errr... used...(I so want to stick {{cn}} at the end...)

Still, the pace picks up:

The eastward extension of this freeway was killed in the Atlanta freeway revolts of the 1970s.

Killed?

So, rushing breathlessly along to Atlanta freeway revolts (T-H-L), we learn that

There have been multiple freeway revolts in Atlanta, Georgia.

It's ROADS meets MILHIST, almost.

Gripping. Unputdownable. A page turner.

[eagle]

Indeed, the roadsters themselves glory in the uselessness of their articles.

A link from that essay took me with 2 clicks to:List of unused highways in Georgia (U.S. state) (T-H-L)

It's... astonishing...
The first sentence is

An unused highway may reference a highway or highway ramp that was partially or fully constructed but was unused[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] or later closed.[10][11][12]

Yes folks, that's 12 "citations" for a sentence saying that an unused highway is a highway that is not, errr... used...(I so want to stick {{cn}} at the end...)

Still, the pace picks up:

The eastward extension of this freeway was killed in the Atlanta freeway revolts of the 1970s.

Killed?

So, rushing breathlessly along to Atlanta freeway revolts (T-H-L), we learn that

There have been multiple freeway revolts in Atlanta, Georgia.

It's ROADS meets MILHIST, almost.

Gripping. Unputdownable. A page turner.

Please turn the page and look at these USRD revolts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Maryland_Route_200&action=history (T-H-L)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hist ... _Route_200
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Route_200
Opposition to Maryland Route 200 (T-H-L)
----
I-81 Controversy In Syracuse (T-H-L)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =418228549
----
Highway revolts (T-H-L) - a meager list instead of in-depth coverage of why people oppose specific highways. The USRD POV is that all roads are great, and any reporting of opposition is unacceptable POV-pushing.

[Vigilant]

How much better/worse off would they be if they deleted every single road article?

[Randy from Boise]

How much better/worse off would they be if they deleted every single road article?

I don't think there is a benefit or a detriment to such articles being in existence, nor would their total deletion move the needle one way or another.

It is what it is and there are a small handful of obsessive-compulsive types who care a LOT.

RfB

[Vigilant]

How much better/worse off would they be if they deleted every single road article?

I don't think there is a benefit or a detriment to such articles being in existence, nor would their total deletion move the needle one way or another.

It is what it is and there are a small handful of obsessive-compulsive types who care a LOT.

RfB

If deleting them, en masse, would have no detrimental effect, then why are they in an encyclopedia?

[Flameau]

The notion of removing well-developed content is detrimental by its nature. Certainly, the Roads project is of niche interest, but almost every commentator's interests and work falls into this same category. The "average reader" is a wonderful construction which can be invoked to distance the commentator from the same criticism. The Roads project is indicative of one key thing - micro over macro. This permeates Wikipedia because it is easier to do a small subject in a niche area than to do an article on a broad subject.

Is anyone really surprised that pop culture dominates over historical subjects? The roads are at least of civil engineering interest and while none of you may need those articles on Wikipedia - I am sure I do not need any of your works either. The suitability of content on Wikipedia should not be based on page-views or "relative importance", but on the simple ability to present the information to a willing reader. Most books in your local libraries are not taken out often - for months or years - and circulation falls to common "pop culture" subjects over all others. In places - the Roads project far exceed the detail and listings of the government agencies and become Google bait for readers responding to road closure notifications. While it is not my preferred subject or interest - the content is there for when a reader wants it. And that's good enough for me.

[Lukeno94]

I think some roads are notable. Most motorways/highways/autobahns are, because they tend to attract a lot of coverage (at least, they do in the UK). So do some "fun/dangerous roads" like the Stelvio Pass (T-H-L). But the A1071 road (T-H-L) in the UK? Why is that notable enough for an article?

[Hex]

Highway revolts (T-H-L) - a meager list instead of in-depth coverage of why people oppose specific highways. The USRD POV is that all roads are great, and any reporting of opposition is unacceptable POV-pushing.

Over here we have Road protest in the United Kingdom (T-H-L) and List of road protests in the UK and Ireland (T-H-L), both of which are pretty crap. It's a mystery to me why someone made it exist as those two parts. If I were still actively editing I'd merge them. By contrast, there's M11 link road protest (T-H-L), which I had a hand in writing, and think is fairly good.

[Vigilant]

Is there a list of all articles in the road category, broadly construed?

[Peter Damian]

I think some roads are notable. Most motorways/highways/autobahns are, because they tend to attract a lot of coverage (at least, they do in the UK). So do some "fun/dangerous roads" like the Stelvio Pass (T-H-L). But the A1071 road (T-H-L) in the UK? Why is that notable enough for an article?

It has a rather stark, severe beauty of its own.

The A1071 road is 16.5 miles (26.6 km) long and runs from the A134 road (near Newton) to Ipswich. It by-passes Boxford, Calais Street, Bower House Tye, Hadleigh Heath, Hadleigh, where it comes to a staggered junction for the A1141 road (left) and the B1070 (right) and goes through Hintlesham. Then it comes to a T-Junction at the A1214 road (London Road) at Chantry. Then the A1214 turns into the A1071 again after the River Orwell and runs into the centre of Ipswich.

[Peter Damian]

Poetry:

The A1071 road is 16.5 miles (26.6 km) long and runs from the A134 road (near Newton)
To Ipswich.
It by-passes Boxford, Calais Street, Bower House Tye, Hadleigh Heath, Hadleigh, where it comes
To a staggered junction for the A1141 road
(Left)
and the B1070 (right) and goes through
Hintlesham.
Then it comes to a T-Junction at the A1214 road (London Road) at Chantry.
Then the A1214
Turns into the A1071 again after the River Orwell
And
Runs into the centre of Ipswich.

[Hex]

PD, you're a genius.

A1198 road (T-H-L), by E. J. Thribb (17½ miles from Royston)

The A1198 is a road
In Cambridgeshire, England,
Following the route of Ermine Street
Between the A505
At Royston, Hertfordshire
And Godmanchester, near Huntingdon.

This road was designated
As a major road
During road classification in 1921,
And originally
Carried the number A14.

When the M11 motorway was completed,
Traffic was encouraged
To follow the new motorway
And the Via Devana
(Then the A604, now the modern A14 road)
Instead.

By 1991, most of the former A14
Was renumbered as the A1198,
With a short section of the route
From Huntingdon to Alconbury
Being renumbered
As a spur
Of the A604.

In August 2010,
Cambridgeshire County Council announced
The reduction of the road's speed limit
From NSL
(60 mph)
To 50 mph
In areas
Where concern was raised
Over the safety of traffic.

[Vigilant]

You can't even do haiku.

A1701... It doesn't fit anywhere!

[Peryglus]

Is there a list of all articles in the road category, broadly construed?

The nearest I can find is Category:Roads by country (T-H-L), and all its subcategories. If you wanted an actual list the only way I know of extracting all the articles is using an AWB bot.

[Randy from Boise]

How much better/worse off would they be if they deleted every single road article?

I don't think there is a benefit or a detriment to such articles being in existence, nor would their total deletion move the needle one way or another.

It is what it is and there are a small handful of obsessive-compulsive types who care a LOT.

RfB

If deleting them, en masse, would have no detrimental effect, then why are they in an encyclopedia?

Don't mistake this for either flippancy or philosophy: they are in Wikipedia because they are in Wikipedia.

Inclusion standards have evolved and they're in, for better or worse.

RfB

[Peter Damian]

they are in Wikipedia because they are in Wikipedia.

[iii]

Consider, if you will, the lovingly curated FEATURED ARTICLES under the category of Transport.

Here are some "hooks" for you to be awed. (Please don't forget that these are the absolute best articles on Wikipedia.)

• California State Route 75 (T-H-L) is a short, 13-mile (21 km) expressway in San Diego County, California.
• Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada–Wendover, Utah) (T-H-L) is an unofficial business loop of Interstate 80 (I-80) that is 2.26 miles (3.64 km) long and serves as the main street for the US cities of West Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah, along a roadway named Wendover Boulevard.
• H-58 (Michigan county highway) (T-H-L) is a county-designated highway in the US state of Michigan that runs east–west for approximately 69 miles (111 km) between the communities of Munising and Deer Park in the Upper Peninsula.
• New York State Route 373 (T-H-L) is a short state highway in Essex County, New York, within Adirondack State Park.
• U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keysers Ridge–Cumberland, Maryland) (T-H-L) is the U.S. Highway designation for a former segment of U.S. Route 40 (US 40) through Garrett and Allegany counties in Maryland.

Truly great encyclopedias absolutely must have articles on such important topics.

[JCM]

There is a valid point raised by one of the posters above which seems to me to point out the obvious flaw of the roads projects. Like others have said, I doubt very very much if much anyone other than road geeks even look at these articles, because they seem to be written in the peculiarly "in-house" style of roadgeekdom. OK, that's bad, but not necessarily worse than having an article on Absorbing Man (T-H-L) or any number of other really minor comics characters.

The problem is that, in some cases, the topics of these articles really do enter into the area of broader politics or other matters beyond simple roadgeekdom, and the existing style guidelines for roads articles don't really permit those infrequent but serious discussions, which in some cases might be more really "notable" than the content of the cookie-cutter article the roadgeeks prefer, to be included. To the extent that happens, the roads projects could really and legitimately be seen as being an impediment to building a real encyclopedia, given their somewhat arbitrary content guidelines. I suppose it could be possible that at some point other editors might take the roads guidelines to broader attention, probably in a political season, and it would be interesting to see the results of such broader discussion.

[Vigilant]

Makes me wonder how long a determined and subtle vandal would last while futzing with the roads articles

[EricBarbour]

There is a valid point raised by one of the posters above which seems to me to point out the obvious flaw of the roads projects. Like others have said, I doubt very very much if much anyone other than road geeks even look at these articles, because they seem to be written in the peculiarly "in-house" style of roadgeekdom. OK, that's bad, but not necessarily worse than having an article on Absorbing Man (T-H-L) or any number of other really minor comics characters.

Absorbing Man: 24,249 bytes
Sancho Panza (T-H-L): 10,820 bytes.

[bobrayner]

Have you seen the lengthy list of this project's "good articles"? How many would pass GA if assessed by people outside the project - perhaps 10%?

I'd call them unreadable, but readability is in the eye of the beholder of course. Some things are more tangible, such as sourcing. Most of the GAs are almost entirely reliant on maps and the occasional local-government primary source. Browsing a few at random, New Jersey Route 87 also goes as far as to cite a travel advisory and an imageshack page (probably copyvio); New Jersey Route 83 cites a photo of a roadsign on Commons; Pennsylvania Route 284 and New York State Route 398 don't even reach that level of imagination, being wholly dependent on government infrastructure listings and Google maps. Most of these "good articles" would struggle to pass the GNG if only it were possible to run a deletion discussion which genuinely collected the community's views, rather than the stalwarts of just this wikiproject.

[Vigilant]

Have you seen the lengthy list of this project's "good articles"? How many would pass GA if assessed by people outside the project - perhaps 10%?

I'd call them unreadable, but readability is in the eye of the beholder of course. Some things are more tangible, such as sourcing. Most of the GAs are almost entirely reliant on maps and the occasional local-government primary source. Browsing a few at random, New Jersey Route 87 also goes as far as to cite a travel advisory and an imageshack page (probably copyvio); New Jersey Route 83 cites a photo of a roadsign on Commons; Pennsylvania Route 284 and New York State Route 398 don't even reach that level of imagination, being wholly dependent on government infrastructure listings and Google maps. Most of these "good articles" would struggle to pass the GNG if only it were possible to run a deletion discussion which genuinely collected the community's views, rather than the stalwarts of just this wikiproject.

Total results: 960
It utterly dilutes any notion of GA being a useful metric of article quality anywhere on wikipeida.

It's as bad as it is funny.

[Johnny Au]

What do these five articles below have in common:

Ontario Highway 401 (T-H-L)
Ontario Highway 402 (T-H-L)
Ontario Highway 403 (T-H-L)
Queen Elizabeth Way (T-H-L)
Don Valley Parkway (T-H-L)

Oh, and there have been "highway revolts" in Toronto as well: Allen Road (T-H-L)

[eagle]

The problem with the road articles is the Wikiproject and wikiwarriors that come with it. As noted earlier in this thread, they:

• delete valid articles that cover the history of controveries over highway construction.
• tax the Good Article and Featured Article review capacity
• tax the antivandalism capacity, and
• add to the overall toxic editing environment.

So, let's not pretend as if this were a harmless addition to Wikipedia.

[Vigilant]

The problem with the road articles is the Wikiproject and wikiwarriors that come with it. As noted earlier in this thread, they:

• delete valid articles that cover the history of controveries over highway construction.
• tax the Good Article and Featured Article review capacity
• tax the antivandalism capacity, and
• add to the overall toxic editing environment.

So, let's not pretend as if this were a harmless addition to Wikipedia.

And the overall work in the roads dementia group is just ... shit.

There's no other way to put it.
These are articles that only the other OCD dimwits can enjoy.
They are utterly useless to regular people trying to read stuff.

[Johnny Au]

Someone merged Spadina Expressway (T-H-L) into Allen Road (T-H-L)

Spadina Expressway had good information about the history of protests against freeway expansion in Toronto, led by famed urbanist Jane Jacobs (T-H-L), who wrote about the decay of American cities due to freeway construction. Unfortunately, it got merged into the article about the current freeway.

However, Cancelled expressways in Toronto (T-H-L) is still there, fortunately.

[Randy from Boise]

And the overall work in the roads dementia group is just ... shit.

There's no other way to put it.
These are articles that only the other OCD dimwits can enjoy.
They are utterly useless to regular people trying to read stuff.

I personally can't disagree with any of that. But I feel that way about lots of areas of Wikipedia...

RfB

[lilburne]

Don't mistake this for either flippancy or philosophy: they are in Wikipedia because they are in Wikipedia.

Inclusion standards have evolved and they're in, for better or worse.

Thought you maintained that WP was improving. I believe eagle above has outlined some of the reasons why these are problematic. He forgot though that they clutter up search results making that less useful.

I personally can't disagree with any of that. But I feel that way about lots of areas of Wikipedia...

Only 'lots'?

[Peter Damian]

There is a valid point raised by one of the posters above which seems to me to point out the obvious flaw of the roads projects. Like others have said, I doubt very very much if much anyone other than road geeks even look at these articles, because they seem to be written in the peculiarly "in-house" style of roadgeekdom. OK, that's bad, but not necessarily worse than having an article on Absorbing Man (T-H-L) or any number of other really minor comics characters.

The problem is that, in some cases, the topics of these articles really do enter into the area of broader politics or other matters beyond simple roadgeekdom, and the existing style guidelines for roads articles don't really permit those infrequent but serious discussions, which in some cases might be more really "notable" than the content of the cookie-cutter article the roadgeeks prefer, to be included. To the extent that happens, the roads projects could really and legitimately be seen as being an impediment to building a real encyclopedia, given their somewhat arbitrary content guidelines. I suppose it could be possible that at some point other editors might take the roads guidelines to broader attention, probably in a political season, and it would be interesting to see the results of such broader discussion.

Interesting point. I am visiting Tintern Abbey next month, which lies on the A446 road. There are plenty of interesting things you could write about that road on Wikipedia (it follows the course of the Wye, a number of historical sites lie on its route and so on). None of these things are in the article.

The A466 runs south from Kingsthorne, on the A49 road south east of Hereford, to the M48 motorway, junction 2, near Chepstow. It meets the A40 road at Monmouth, crossing the River Wye there and at Bigsweir Bridge near Llandogo, then follows a picturesque route south down the Wye valley through Tintern.

I have always been interested in English roads. I have never been interested in any of the Wikipedia articles about them. They seem to have been written by some highway planning department somewhere.

[lilburne]

Interesting point. I am visiting Tintern Abbey next month, which lies on the A446 road. There are plenty of interesting things you could write about that road on Wikipedia (it follows the course of the Wye, a number of historical sites lie on its route and so on). None of these things are in the article.

The A466 runs south from Kingsthorne, on the A49 road south east of Hereford, to the M48 motorway, junction 2, near Chepstow. It meets the A40 road at Monmouth, crossing the River Wye there and at Bigsweir Bridge near Llandogo, then follows a picturesque route south down the Wye valley through Tintern.

I have always been interested in English roads. I have never been interested in any of the Wikipedia articles about them. They seem to have been written by some highway planning department somewhere.

Exactly Fosse Way (T-H-L), is nigh on total crap, despite having approx 2000 years of history. Watling Street (T-H-L) and Ermine Street (T-H-L) are even worse.

[Poetlister]

The A1071 article is entirely based on a couple of maps showing its route. That should really be grounds for deletion. I have no difficulty with an article on a road if there are several sources saying interesting things about it, but that is clearly not the case here. And it must be remembered that the road number may well be a later imposition linking several roads that were never intended to be one road, and that these numbers do get altered.

[Lukeno94]

The A1071 article is entirely based on a couple of maps showing its route. That should really be grounds for deletion. I have no difficulty with an article on a road if there are several sources saying interesting things about it, but that is clearly not the case here. And it must be remembered that the road number may well be a later imposition linking several roads that were never intended to be one road, and that these numbers do get altered.

The M1/A1/A1(M) mess being one such example, I think.

[Scott5114]

Wikipediocracy members find subject boring that other people find interesting: film at eleven!

[Jim]

Wikipediocracy members find subject boring that other people find interesting: film at eleven!

Probably just a boring repeat of an old Road movie (T-H-L) we've all seen a dozen times before, I'll bet.
Don't mind if it's Thelma and Louise, though.

[Zoloft]

Wikipediocracy members find subject boring that other people find interesting: film at eleven!

Probably just a boring repeat of an old Road movie (T-H-L) we've all seen a dozen times before, I'll bet.
Don't mind if it's Thelma and Louise, though.

No, the Road_to_… (T-H-L) movies have more going on, podner.

[Peter Damian]

Wikipediocracy members find subject boring that other people find interesting

As I said above, I find roads very interesting, it's just that the Wikipedia articles about them aren't very interesting. By analogy, I find people very interesting, but I don't find phone directories very interesting.

[Jim]

No, the Road_to_… (T-H-L) movies have more going on, podner.

And, see, once again, I learned something interesting at Wikipedia today:

In the 1980s, Eric Idle wanted to make a 'Road...' picture called The Road to Mars, but was so put off by the executive meddling done at Hollywood studios, that he decided to do it as a novel instead.

The Road to Mars (T-H-L) - never knew, never read, now on the list.

[Jim]

By analogy, I find people very interesting, but I don't find phone directories very interesting.

Or reliable, if any reader can change any name, address or number to any value they like, in error, maliciously, or just for shits'n'giggles. (I'm getting deja vu here - we had this conversation before, I think)      edit: ah, similar

[Scott5114]

Wikipediocracy members find subject boring that other people find interesting

As I said above, I find roads very interesting, it's just that the Wikipedia articles about them aren't very interesting. By analogy, I find people very interesting, but I don't find phone directories very interesting.

Unfortunately, the road articles are constrained by Wikipedia policy. They'd be a good deal more interesting if they weren't. NPOV says they can't even note scenic portions of road unless someone else has given them an Official Verifiable Stamp Of Scenicness, as that would be Original Research and therefore Bad And Wrong.

[Jim]

Wikipediocracy members find subject boring that other people find interesting

As I said above, I find roads very interesting, it's just that the Wikipedia articles about them aren't very interesting. By analogy, I find people very interesting, but I don't find phone directories very interesting.

Unfortunately, the road articles are constrained by Wikipedia policy. They'd be a good deal more interesting if they weren't. NPOV says they can't even note scenic portions of road unless someone else has given them an Official Verifiable Stamp Of Scenicness, as that would be Original Research and therefore Bad And Wrong.

That's because there are far, far too many, about most of which nothing interesting can be said (clue - interesting to ordinary people, not road enthusiasts), and therefore, for most other classes of article they would not be allowed to exist. Look above for examples of roads where interesting stuff could be said, and isn't link.. - they are not US roads given as examples, but I'm sure many such could be found.

Separate question - look above to the sentence which says nothing at all with the "aid" of 12 "citations". What's that all about?
Here, I'll save you the scroll:

It's... astonishing...
The first sentence is

An unused highway may reference a highway or highway ramp that was partially or fully constructed but was unused[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] or later closed.[10][11][12]

Yes folks, that's 12 "citations" for a sentence saying that an unused highway is a highway that is not, errr... used...(I so want to stick {{cn}} at the end...)

[Peter Damian]

Unfortunately, the road articles are constrained by Wikipedia policy.

This is simply not true. NPOV allows you to incorporate what other people have said about scenicness, e.g. the Wye valley route (A446) which I mentioned above. Indeed there is a whole wiki article Wye Tour (T-H-L) about the scenicness in general.

Another example: A299 road (T-H-L). The A299 road is more interesting than the article suggests. See e.g. this page which tells you more about its history, the effects of its development. More could be said about the problems created by the third ‘suicide lane’ common to many roads built in the 1930s, or the road houses, or the fact it was the main conduit to the coastal resorts in the 1960s with the advent of mass car ownership. There is lots more really interesting stuff you can say about that road, all of it NPOV. Ian Fleming even mentions the road in Goldfinger.

There’s an even more interesting road A251 road (Great Britain) (T-H-L) in that area, about which there isn’t even an article, only a redirect.

Yes, I know that Wikipedia always needs improving, sofixit and so on. My point is that there are interesting ways to talk about roads, and uninteresting ones.

[lilburne]

Unfortunately, the road articles are constrained by Wikipedia policy. They'd be a good deal more interesting if they weren't. NPOV says they can't even note scenic portions of road unless someone else has given them an Official Verifiable Stamp Of Scenicness, as that would be Original Research and therefore Bad And Wrong.

What you are saying is that fundamentally Roads are a poor match for wikipedia. Any blog could do a better job of it. For example one could take stretch of road in any location and document that wildlife that lives alongside it. One could take stretches of road and document its affect on local towns and villages, including whether the T/V existed prior to the road. For roads outside of the US (though maybe even there too) one could document pilgrimage routes, where priories, abbeys, inns and hostels where along the route etc. How a road and its bridges were built and maintained by feudal landlords and their tenants. Hell this linkhttp://www.kidderminstertothecaspianbyb ... spot.co.uk[/link] road trip blog is far more interesting and informative than any of the WP articles.

[Jim]

What you are saying is that fundamentally Roads are a poor match for wikipedia.

Good point, well made, and, with apologies to present company, the wikipedia roads writers, in general, may not be the guys you'd want writing them, or deciding which ones should be written.