Talk:Intersection (road)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Traffic light#Traffic signal cycles|a period of time]] The anchor (#Traffic signal cycles) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Request for links regarding highway interchanges

Does anybody have any links to pages that discuss this in more detail? Specifically pages concerning highway interchanges? Ezra Wax

Turbine vs. whirlpool

I think these are actually the same kind of interchange... GCarty 12:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also called a windmill. None of them seems to have more than a few google matches, so unless someone can show evidence of official usage of the term, I removed the terms (and removed turbine, since it's covered in stack). --SPUI 22:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Links here need to be fixed

A lot of articles use interchange, but highway interchange is now a separate article. If people were smart and used redirects, we wouldn't have this problem. --SPUI (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but sometimes if a wikilink links to a redirect, a bot comes along and changes the link to link to the target article instead. However, now that template messages for redirect pages are now working, some use could be made of the {{R with possibilities}} template. Ae-a 19:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing almost all content bad idea

To me it is not clear what was gained by removing almost all content form this article. Much of it was not specific to motorways (where it was moved). In many cities also ordinary roads have all kinds of constructions to separate traffic. It's really not an improvement. We should either bring it back or merge the articles under a more general name. What was wrong with Road junction? −Woodstone 19:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally split into road junction (this article) and motorway junction but the articles have since been renamed Intersection (road) (this article) and Interchange (road). These two titles better reflect the two types of road-junction, and the material that has been moved is now in interchange (road) which with it's new title does not imply that road interchanges only belong to motorways. Since your comment, the article has been tidied up, but could still benefit from more material about road intercections (not road interchanges). Even so, now that the article is split, it makes it easier to link the two articles with articles in other languages. See also junction (traffic). Ae-a 18:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded this article, adding a diagram of an example intersection and three new sections. H Padleckas 00:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Interchange (road), Junction (traffic) and Intersection (road)

This article is a stub. Merging it with the other two (as before) creates a delightful and informative article. −Woodstone 16:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Frankly, the old interchange article was a mess in terms of structure. An interchange is inherently different from an intersection due to the presence of a grade separation and ramps. A basic intersection might cost only $100,000 (the cost of paving the intersecting roads and adding a stop sign, limit lines, and perhaps a few other safety signs), while a full-fledged interchange costs anywhere from $20 million to $1 billion (e.g., the Macarthur Maze reconfiguration in Oakland after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake), depending upon the size and number of roads to be connected.

I supported the split, and I prefer to keep interchange and intersection separate. Pardon my bluntness, but this merge proposal is one of the dumbest I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I am also posting this response to the other articles' talk pages.--Coolcaesar 04:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Junction (traffic)#Merge proposal revived for my response. Ae-a 15:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an {{attention}} template to "Intersection (road)" to draw attention to the article in the hope that it will be expanded. One possible means of expanding the article would be to translate some material from some of the other-language Wikipedias. Ae-a 15:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded this article, adding a diagram of an example intersection and three new sections. My information is based on observations I've made in the United States. Somebody else can add more info on intersections in other parts of the world. If there are no objections, I may take out the Attention:cleanup template in a few days.
H Padleckas 00:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have expanded the article considerably since the cleanup tag was added, I have removed the cleanup tag. H Padleckas 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largely written from drive on the right perspective; Other turn lane

This article is largely written from the perspective of jurisdictions where vehicles are driven on the right. It should probably be rewritten in a more inclusive way.

The "Turn lanes" section doesn't really go into the fact that right turn lanes/bays can exist on right-hand drive roads. Also, the caption doesn't make it clear (except by implication) which street is "North-South" and which is "East-West".

--Chaswmsday (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to the "Turn lanes" section, Triskele Jim! That section is vastly improved now, with verbiage I never would have thought to use. I'm glad I left it for someone who is more of an expert than I, since I would have just blundered through! --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right-of-way prose is scattered

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Right-of-way prose is scattered. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with lede

Prior to the most recent edit, the lede of this article was confusing, and introduced terms which should have been linked, but were not. Some of these terms circularly point back to this article.

The most recent edit removed the term "at-grade", which distinguishes an intersection from the other type of road junction, a grade-separated interchange. It also adds the ambiguous term, "conflicting traffic" (cf. traffic conflict), and over-elevates a specific type of traffic control, the "four-way stop".

Many of the specific terms used in the lede would seem to more properly belong in the body.

I'll attempt to improve/clarify. Please let me know if I have, in fact, done that. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant article

This article is irrelevant as to railways, see Talk:At-grade#Inappropriate redirect. Peter Horn User talk 17:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In just over three years this anomaly has not been addressed. Peter Horn User talk 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

A similar merge proposal was made about 10 years ago but was rejected because the proposal included interchanges. This is a more general topic and the two terms (junction and intersection) are synonymous - the difference being which side of the ocean one lives on. Verne Equinox (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose converting Road junction to a disambiguation page, with links to Intersection (road) and Interchange (road). Most of the content currently on Road junction could be moved to this page, since the former is mostly about intersections. Needforspeed888 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning oppose, but not too sure. The salient question for me is whether there's enough to say about road junctions that applies to both intersections and interchanges for the umbrella junction article to be notable. Sdkb (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, given the extent of overlap. Any differences (perhaps amongst countries) can be discussed on the combined page. Klbrain (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing support and closing, given that there isn't a consensus for a merge and there have been reasonable objections raised. Klbrain (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]