Talk:Interstate 5

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Numbers[edit]

I like how this is shaping up, and I can definitely see how articles like this one can be useful to travelers. However, I don't understand the numbers at the beginnings of entries. If those are mile numbers, why are you not starting with 0? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are milemarkers - they start at 0 at the Mexican border and run to 796.77 at the Oregon border. I'm pulling them from [1] (public domain license). If desired we could switch the order from north-to-south to south-to-north. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes more sense to start from 0 and go in order of increasing numbers, hence south to north. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I understand the increasing number request, I have to admit going down the page is South to North I am finding it a challenge as I compare locations on the list with places on a map. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WIP[edit]

I have started putting the towns along the way that have article and also the counties as sub-section. Intent to turn the bullet list into listing, is a work in progress, so if you find time please assist. I just though it would be useful to identify places along the way at this point. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be preferable to work the city names into listings for either exits or POIs along the route to make it clear what the city's proximity is to the route, or perhaps to use sub-listings such as a listing for "Oceanside exits" with multiple listings under it for the multiple exits - would that be clearer? Special:Diff/2923100/2923101 doesn't make it obvious whether Oceanside is on the route, what exit to take to get there, etc. Also, rather than using county names to sub-divide the list (which may not be familiar to travelers), what about sub-divisions based on major destinations along the route? I was thinking of something like "San Diego Area", "Los Angeles Area", "Tehachapi Mountains", "Central Valley", etc? -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was my intention to make the locations listings, just the effort of compiling list is enough without all the coordinates and exit number to do at the same time. Why I stated WIP. Different sub-sections for the traveller also make sense. Counties helps while collating the list but can be changed. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The area spilt proposed by @Wrh2: makes more sense than the original county subsections I created. I also thing it would be useful for some small description at the start of each section. For example Central Valley is 2 lane each way mainly straight and little inclines. Tehachapi Mountains 3 lanes but some slow moving traffic. LA/OC area multiple lanes but very busy, should avoid if you can at peak times. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you all plan to put this thing together but I've included some information about the places along the way in Washington state to make for an interesting read as well as a link to both the Wikipedia and Wikivoyage article for more info. This gives the reader a chance to decide where to stop along Interstate 5. I tried to keep to the same format that was started in California for Washington -- Anyone150 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Edit button[edit]

When I click "edit" for a listing, the listing editor brings up the second-previous item: to edit Santa Nella, I had to click the Patterson listing. :) Peter Chastain (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It worked as expected for me - is it possible you were viewing an older version of the page? If it's still happening, what browser are you using? -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did see this yesterday but after the fix it works fine for me now. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, yes, I was probably viewing an older version of a page. I have reported this at the Listing editor project page. Peter Chastain (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fees[edit]

I have never driven a section with tolls, but are there any fees (bridge tolls, road/park permits) that have to be paid anywhere along the route? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California has almost no toll roads, excepting some bridges and Seven Mile Drive — that's why highways in California are called "freeways". Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea about the other states? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The most heavily used roads in various Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states are toll roads, usually but not always called "turnpikes" (there's also, for example, the New York State Thruway and the Garden State Parkway). Some other states have some toll roads, too. However, even within the Northeast, there are some states with no toll roads, such as Connecticut, which got rid of tolls on I-95 (the Connecticut Turnpike) in the 1980s. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the Turnpikes in the North East, was thinking more about what was on Interstate 5. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any toll roads in Oregon or Washington, either. I can't think of toll roads west of the Mississippi at all, other than Seven Mile Drive, though maybe there are a few I don't know about. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is something south of LA that I'm unaware of, there are no tolls anywhere in I-5. I-405 is implementing an express lane with congestion pricing, and I suspect if that proves effective that I-5 through Los Angeles may eventually see something similar, but even if that does happen it would still be possible to drive the entire length of the interstate without paying any tolls. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no toll segments of Interstate 5/Hwy 99 in Oregon or Washington either.

-- Anyne150 • (talk) • 14:39, 9 July 2019(UTC)

Sources[edit]

The following sources were used in creating this article:

-- Ryan • (talk) • 04:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Created the list of exits manually in Washington state using Google maps, other Wikivoyage articles and other Wikipedia articles.

-- Anyone150 • (talk) • 14:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-highway transportation[edit]

This article now contains an extensive discussion on airlines operating on the West Coast, and while that's great information to have in Wikivoyage, I question whether it makes sense in an article about Interstate 5. Since driving is the only legal transportation option for moving along I-5 I'd suggest removing the "Go" section to other articles and keeping the focus firmly on the interstate. Thoughts? @Anyone150: -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because it could be a combination of driving and other forms of transportation to travel along Interstate 5. Point of doing this is that air travel is the quickest and economical way to get from one end or one segment of the highway to the other over longer distances in two or three hours vs 24+ hours, allowing travelers to travel along the I-5 corridor to visit/see certain places or cities along the freeway and skipping over the rest. Furthermore, there are a number of airports located next to the freeway or within 3-5mi/4.8 - 8km of the freeway itself. As for coming in they can insert themselves anywhere along the freeway from any city and travel along the freeway to another city but not the whole length of the freeway either. Even if they tour the whole length they most likely complete the journey in one direction and fly back in the other direction. So a flight from Bellingham WA to Burbank CA would almost be like flying along I-5 as both airports are next to the freeway itself but skipping the rest if the traveler is in a hurry to get there. An example is someone from the Los Angeles area can only have enough time to visit Seattle and then realize they can get to Portland or Vancouver BC in relatively reasonable amount of time. So from Seattle they can rent a car and see what else the along the I-5 corridor only between Portland and Seattle and what airlines are flying from Los Angles to Seattle or what other airports are there besides Sea-Tac for a better airfare. How about getting to the Siskyous from Los Angeles or Seattle (opposite ends)? What airports are nearest to there and what airlines fly into the airports? How about bus and rail travel? Shouldn't they go into the "Go" section too? Greyhound runs the full length of the I-5 itself while other carriers go part of the way between certain cities within certain states which would be a way to travel along Interstate 5 without a car. Amtrak doesn't quite run along the I-5 itself but do run more or less parallel along I-5 through cities that are connected by Interstate 5 in some places. Their Thruway Coaches do use I-5 when their trains aren't running. Would they count for the benefit of non-driving users? Basically Interstate 5 is the transport backbone for the west coast of the United States, connecting major west coast cities and many use it to travel north & south quickly than to sightsee as there are a number of parallel backroads in three states that are much scenic for sightseeing. —The preceding comment was added by Anyone150‎ (talk • contribs)
I don't disagree that there is value in pointing out some of the major entry points to the route (airports or otherwise) and mentioning alternatives like Amtrak, but I think the current level of detail about those options takes the focus away from Interstate 5. The article was originally conceived as being a detailed guide for travelers along I-5, and adding a paragraph about every airline that operates on the West Coast takes the focus away from that original goal and instead seems like info that would be more appropriate in the California and Pacific Northwest articles, or possibly a "West Coast" extraregion article. That's just my opinion, however - hopefully others can weigh in. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Ryan. Air routes between Vancouver, San Diego and cities in between are not part of Interstate 5 and should be covered separately, for example in a "West Coast by Air" article, if there's really enough content for one. However, it would make perfect sense to include a "By plane" section in "Get in", specifying the airports that are reasonably close to the freeway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

@LPfi: just wondering, but how is it possible to get c:Data:Interstate 5.map onto this page? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible, but the documentation is week. {{mapshape}} only refers to Madrid. I didn't get it to work with a quick try (but might have done some simple mistake). I will probably try again, perhaps next week. –LPfi (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: Yes Done. Did it locally, making this page the longest page in terms of byte size on voy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we get somebody write the instructions, to be able to use the ready-made data and avoid having it in the articles. –LPfi (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I could try transcluding it, but unfortunately given this wiki's anti-template policy (I'm really not going to be wasting time getting the so called "support" for a simple transclusion), it doesn't seem a viable option.
On another note, I think this is now the longest page in terms of byte size SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia templates are used on this site, we just want to restrict their use – but I understand your concern. In this case, I don't see what would be transcluded (from where?), would you mind explaining? Do you mean having the maplink data on a subpage? –LPfi (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to just create Template:Interstate 5 map and then paste the code into there and transclude it (by just pasting {{Interstate 5 map}} somewhere in the page), saving up to about 200k worth of bytes. I've tried this a while ago with User:SHB2000/Sydney on foot and it worked (feel free to experiment with that page, since I long abandoned that article after realising there's too many walks to cover there). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think that kind of template use could be taken to the pub, perhaps in connection to asking about how to use pages like the c:Data:Interstate 5.map. I am trying not to get involved in such discussions (ough, I notice I started two today) just now. Feel free to reminda me if I haven't not come around to doing it in a couple of weeks. –LPfi (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping or removing the markers for each exit?[edit]

Should we remove the (green) exit markers for each and every exit and use the markers to mark the name/location of a major city/town along the freeway and its intersection/junction with a major east west highway (I-15, I-8, I-10, I-80/US50, I-84, I-90)? Anyone150 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia links[edit]

I think that per Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia, there should be no inline links to Wikipedia whatsoever in this article. Listings can have a "wikidata" field, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And markers too, and those make up our inline Wikipedia links. You can also have a separate wikipedia field in the listing or marker, for some special cases.
Some of the Wikipedia links are for cities that don't have an article on Wikivoyage. Those should mostly point to the Wikivoyage article handling them, such as an article on a nearby bigger city or a region article. In the latter case, check that the city listing has a wikidata parameter, so that it gets the Wikipedia link. The listing can be linked as [[Region#Cityname]], given that the city has a listing under that name.
–LPfi (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK to use Wikipedia links in markers? What is Wikivoyage policy on that, and do you know what page it's on? I'd look, myself, but I'm going to go to bed shortly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikivoyage:Markers, and I now realise that the marker template isn't mentioned in Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia. I have used them based on the template documentation or the template itself. Anyway, I think sound judgement and Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first can be used in situations where you could contemplate using a listing. Markers should of course not be used just to get around the policy on inline links. –LPfi (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_5&oldid=4602825"