Talk:Kennedy Expressway/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shield size standards -- vote

Okay, not sure how shield size standards are going or where they should go... I'll put it here for reference. It looks like there are four different sizes to go with...

• Main 2di Interstate Pages (ex. Interstate 90) -- 100px
• Main 3di Interstate Pages (ex. Interstate 190) -- 150px
• Subcategory 2di Interstate Pages (ex. Abraham Lincoln Memorial Bridge) -- 80px
• Subcategory 3di Interstate Pages (ex. Kennedy Expressway) -- 120px

100px shields just look too big. 150px ones are huge. Especially for the content surrounding them. Is this reasonable, or should I start actively changing 80px to 100px shields, and 120px to 150px shields? The rationale behind four different shield sizes is that if you go to Interstate 90, the number takes precedence, whereas for a named road like the Tri-State Tollway, the numbers just happen to be a part of the route.

Incidentally, this is also why merging things like Eisenhower Expressway and Interstate 290 (Illinois) result in odd-reading pages. --Rob 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes for 4 shield sizes

See above. --Rob 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Construction Trivia

The JFK Expressway (Northwest Expressway) has red exit ramps. When originally constructed, the concrete for exit (and perhaps entrance) ramps were colored with red pigment. The was a safety feature: when the pavement changed from "white" to red, drivers should reduce speed. It's likely some of this red concrete survives under layers of asphalt resurfacing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertkeller (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What I would give for a decent GIS viewer...

I-190 mile markers and municipalities from GIS:

• 0.00-1.47 - Chicago
• 1.47-2.49 - Rosemont
• 2.49-3.07 - Chicago

—Rob (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Orange tag

Why this this tag post for?--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on the exit list... that said, I don't think either side of the war is wrong, per se. The exit list is technically right as it is, although the fact the exit numbers revert to 1-1D suddenly in the exit list is somewhat odd. —Rob (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia were a real encyclopedia, the rule would be to cover something once in its best place. "See I-190 for the continuation towards O'Hare Airport" violates the rule of mutual exclusivity. Also there seems to be a dispute whether there is one interchange with the Tri-State or two, and where it is located. Busjack (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you disputing the accuracy of? --NE2 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can't read the preceding paragraph that I wrote, then I can't help you. At a minimum, either the entire Kennedy into the O'Hare Loop goes in one place, or all of I-190 is treated only in one one place with the continuation cross reference.Busjack (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Last I heard, there wasn't a rule regarding mutual exclusivity on exit lists. It is a good practice, but not required, and especially not required when dealing with Chicago-area expressways. My personal opinion, I-190 is a segment of the Kennedy Expressway, and so we file it in the most detail-oriented article that exists for that segment - Interstate 190 (Illinois).

The interchange with the Tri-State is complicated. Westbound, only a direct exit to I-294 south (1D). I-294 north is only accessible on I-90 West, so technically that particular ramp is on the Addams Tollway (it is unnumbered). Eastbound, a direct exit to I-294 south (1D), followed by a direct exit to I-294 north (1C) which is also marked as the exit to I-90 west. —Rob (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Guidebook style

IMO a lot of 'Features' reads more like an instruction manual than an encyclopædia article- see here, Lexyboy (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say I agree and think it should be removed. It was added here. Jason McHuff (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversible lanes

Is there any way the text of the email from the Illinois Department of Transportation can be provided so that we can more or less "officially" cite it as a source? Thanks! —Rob (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)