Talk:List of state highways in Utah

The following routes are broken

• SR-9 in Zion National Park (included in mileage)
• SR-30 via I-84, I-15, US-91, US-89
• SR-48 via SR-68
• SR-79 via US-89; also includes a westbound piece
• SR-104 includes a westbound piece
• SR-118 via SR-120
• SR-137 includes a spur in Mayfield
• SR-190 includes a spur to Brighton
• SR-210 includes a bypass at Alta
• SR-228 includes a spur in Leeds
• SR-269 includes a westbound piece
• SR-276 in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (included in mileage)
• SR-282 is a multi-segment facility route
• SR-284 is a multi-segment facility route
• SR-286 is a multi-segment facility route
• SR-292 is a multi-segment facility route

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by NE2 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 July 2007

Two items to be resolved in the handling of this page

Howdy, With Admrb♉ltz's overhaul of this page (which I support), I think there are three issues that need to be hammered out. I'll list them and give my opinion. with space for everbody else who wants to opine to do so. Dave (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1- The naming of these pages: List of numbered highways in Utah for US and interstate routes and List of state highways in Utah for the list of state routes.

• Comment by Dave - I'm ok with these names, but it does strike me as odd. If somebody were to opine to rename them I'd probably support that.

The other list is poorly named, it should be List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Utah or something --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Comment by CL - I agree; there's no better way to rename these than what Ad has said already.
  • This one is poorly named too, since Interstates and U.S. Routes are state highways. I also disagree with the split, since it keeps someone from finding out what the actual longest state highway is (US-89), and where the other Interstates and U.S. Routes fit. --NE2 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • While what you say is true, the name Admrboltz proposed is still accurate. I-15 is both a state highway and an interstate highway, the fact that it is one does not negate the other. However, NE2 makes a larger point. If the pages are to remain separate it should be sure to state that the US highways and Interstate highways are mantained by UDOT and treated like any other state highway by the state legislature. Just checked, it does essentially say that.Dave (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I pretty much used the same block of text regarding UDOT and its predecessor on both lists, and if we were to create an overview page. Numbered highways in Utah as a all prose article, and no list, we could mention it there as well. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

2- Multiplexes 'er uh, Concurrencies 'er uh whatever the politically correct term is these days. (amazing the things we fight about in this forum) UDOT does not include mileage figures for route concurrencies on Utah state routes. Should we? Where this comes into play is the page currently claims that SR-24 is the longest state route. I suspect that if we were to count the implied connections necessary to drive SR-30 it would be the longest.

• Dave's Opinion - I don't have one, only that we be consistent
• I'd say if UDOT doesn't count it, then we shouldn't --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• CL - I second that; if UDOT hates concurrencies, we should probably reflect that in keeping SR-24 as longest route in the system; perhaps we add a note for SR-30 saying "Longest route in the system with implied connections", though I wouldn't know how

3- How to handle the Former routes. The current situation is kinda goofy. If the route designation has been re-used it's included in the main table under the column of "former uses". However if the designation is not in current use, it's mentioned below the main table in a seperate identically formatted table. This causes the odd situation of most of this second table being blank with a column labeled "Former Uses" which is really describing "years active". The current iteration of List of numbered highways in Utah handles this differently, two separate tables, with slightly different columns in the table.

• Comment by Dave: We could do this a couple of ways. I like how List of numbered highways in Utah page handles this, and am currently leaning towards this option, although we should probably discuss which columns should be used. I would also be open to merging the tables to have one table in sequential order, using the "former uses" as the non-current route links, with something like "Not Currently Assigned" to fill the other entries for a route number no longer in use (this is what Dan Stober's website essentially does).
• I am not sure how to handle this one. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• CL - I say we merge all the former routes into the current routes table and perhaps put a different color for the decommissioned routes; something like List of state highways in California CL — 01:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with that, but let's not follow the CA page too closely, Column heading is "Became a state highway" then has two dates I.E. 1910-1951 What's up with that? That's just awful.Dave (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I just wanted to copy the color from that list, but retain the way we do our list already, if that makes any sense - CL — 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think there should be some changes. If we literally just merged the two tables, we'd have a big inconsistency. I'm going to use just SR-7 and SR-9 for this example. SR-7 a non-current route whose designation was never re-used would have an entire line dedicated to it. SR-9, which was re-used after the original usage was eliminated would only be mentioned in a cell of the row for current SR-9. I would say if we're going to merge the two tables, we should either have two rows for SR-9, one for each iteration. Or only have one row for SR-9 and the row for SR-7 say "Designation not currently in use" except for the "Former Uses" column. Of those two ideas, I'd rather go with the first and have separate entries for each iteration of a route, and eliminate the Former Uses column. Dave (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I like the California list, because I made it :) "Became a state highway" is more useful in California than Utah, because of the 1964 renumbering. Here there wasn't any comparable renumbering. --NE2 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh Good, then you're the right person to ask, if we're going to use that page as a model, what does "Became a state highway:1910-1951" mean? The footnote says it's the date approved by the legislature? The legislature schizophrenically took 41 years to approve the route? I'm not trying to be cynical, trying to figure this out as Utah routes are legislatively defined too.Dave (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Let's take SR 70 as an example. Under the 1910 bond issue, the California Highway Commission created Route 30 from Oroville to Quincy. It was extended east to US 395 in 1931 (as Route 21), and in 1933 a new Route 87 included the part from Marysville to Oroville. Finally, in 1949, the road from Sacramento directly north to Marysville became Route 232. At times, portions of this were signed as SR 24 and US 40A. The SR 70 designation did not come about until the 1964 renumbering, when the state legislature adopted existing sign route numbers in place of the old legislative routes (21, 30, 87, 232) and assigned new numbers to some. So that's what "1910-1949" means - the route that is now SR 70 was added between those dates. The "formed" column shows that the SR 70 designation, itself, was defined by the legislature in 1964.
        • Now this isn't necessary in Utah. It may be worthwhile to include notes for routes like SR-16 and SR-38 that were straight renumberings of earlier routes, but otherwise it will usually match the date the designation was assigned. --NE2 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset)That's not how I would have done it, but if that's what consensus agreed upon, so be it.Dave (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

4. For the record the Navajo Bridge is in Arizona, yet we have a picture of it on List of numbered highways in Utah. I personally don't care, but if we want to stick to "Utah Pride" may want to sub it for a picture of Monument Valley or something on the Utah side of the line =-).Dave (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I grabbed it cause it was a US-89A image; I was looking for a third US route image for the section. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But what was your intent, Is the picture of Navajo Bridge OK because it is the "flagship" landmark along a highway that does extend into Utah, or should an article about Utah highways only use pictures of objects inside state lines?Dave (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if it makes Utah look good I say keep it :) CL — 03:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I must admit part of the reason why I brought this up is personal. I've given lots of people in Arizona crap about how Arizona loves to claim Monument Valley and Lake Powell as theirs. Including HolderCA1, whom I worked with on the U.S. Route 163 article. So I don't want them to come back on me. =-) Dave (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I know exactly what you're talking about. I always see "Monument Valley, Arizona" in books and such, and then I see people refer to Lake Powell as if it's only in Arizona, but hey, we can swallow our pride just this once right? CL — 04:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a photo of the part of State Street that's still US-89, facing the capitol, that might be a good third photo. --NE2 04:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you talking about the area south of 4th South? I'll put it on my to-do list - CL — 04:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - Image:Utah State Capitol seen from State Street.jpg would have worked a few years ago. --NE2 04:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Revamp

In the above section, we did not come to a consensus on how to re-do this page, but we did seem to agree that how the "former routes" section is handled is goofy. Currently we have two standards, if the route designation is active, a redirect is listed in "former uses" if the route designation is no longer active, it's in a seperate table. Therefore here's what I'm going to start. Feel free to make changes.

• Merge the two tables into one, with one line for each iteration of a route number in reverse chronological order. (i.e. two entries for SR-9, first the current definition, then the former). Replace the "former Uses" with years active. For the current generation this would say "Current".

If you think this sucks, you know what to do..... Dave (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)