Talk:Road

In my opinion, information should be added to the term 'Banked turn' in the 'Terminology' section of the article due to it being the only term in the 'Terminology' section to not have any information about what a banked turn is. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Reply

Agree Ibadibam (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Reply

In my opinion in the 'Terminology' section, the terms should all be put into alphabetical order as it will take someone longer to find a certain term if the terms are not all in alphabetical order. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Reply

Agree Ibadibam (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Reply

In my opinion, information should be added to say what a 'Drainage gradient' is in the 'Terminology' section of the article as readers may not know what it is. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Reply

Agree with your three proposals on this talk page. Please feel free to be bold and make these improvements! Ibadibam (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Reply

For the reader's convenience, I have added a quotation of the relevant content to the citation for the article "Large economic gains can come from mundane improvements in policy". Anyone who would like to read the article in full can access it with a free account on the site. (For the record, access does not affect a source's reliability or verifiability...see WP:RSC.) The original addition to the article which mentioned potholes was erroneous: the article makes no connection to potholes being the cause of the statistic. I have revised the paragraph to remove any mention of potholes and focus on road quality, which is perfectly germane to this article. That said, it would be preferable to track down the actual study that was the original source of this information. Ibadibam (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Reply

In my opinion, the capital letters used to highlight what 'Pelican' stands for (PE in the word 'pedestrian', LI in the word 'light and CON in the word 'controlled' should be made bold so that they stand out. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Reply

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Roads and Highways and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Roads and Highways until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Reply

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Highway construction and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Highway construction until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Reply

The article states that road use contributes to road deterioration. This is a commonly held belief, but numerous studies have been done, including the one used in the citation (54), and have found that if paved roads do deteriorate from normal use, the effect is either unnoticeable or pronounced indirectly through the other processes listed. 2600:8803:C40B:F900:7C22:231F:50F9:C93 (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

Hello user:Isaac Rabinovitch. From your edit summary at pedestrian, it seems you know this stuff. The first sentence of this article is overly technical, using words like thoroughfare and conveyance. It would be great if we could define a road using plain English instead. Do you have any suggestions perhaps? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

It's kind of you to assume that I'm an expert, but in fact most of what I know about transportation topics comes from reading Wikipedia!

I disagree that these terms are overly technical by Wikipedia's standards. Note that most people don't care about the distinction between roads and streets, but Wikipedia goes to a lot of trouble to differentiate them. And if you talk about roads and streets, then you need a term that embraces them both; can you think of a less technical word to use than "thoroughfare." Similarly you need a term that means "cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, etc.", for which "conveyance" is the only word I can think of.

Obviously we need to use no more technical language than necessary. But we also need to use no less. — Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

According to Cambridge dictionary, that is Indian-specific or old-fashioned use of that word (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conveyance). As an initial step, could the sentence work as: "A road is a thoroughfare for traffic that mostly has an improved surface for use by vehicles (motorized and non-motorized) and pedestrians". Note that other sources do define it using plain English: Cambridge dictionary: a long, hard surface built for vehicles to travel along. Collin: a long piece of hard ground which is built between two places so that people can drive or ride easily from one place to the other. Oxford dictionary: A path or way between different places, or leading to some place. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I object to adding the word stroad (which I learned this week) this prominently, as it's too niche? At least, here in the UK and in Europe, that's not a word people would know. I think it's important to mention what kind of road users roads are for. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

If the distinction between "street" and "road" isn't too niche, then neither is a thing that combines the two. Urbanists talk about stroads all the time. I've seen the word used in American, Canadian, and ANZAC contexts. I suppose they might be less common in the UK, where a lot of streets are centuries old and thus don't easily evolve into stroads. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

The article stroad is available only in 7 languages. There isn't even a word for it in German and Dutch; it's not just rare in the UK. And more importantly, it's not included in the body of the article WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Hope it's okay I remove it, but feel free to add it to an appropriate place in the body if you have a good source! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Absolutely not OK. English Wikipedia gets almost as much traffic as all the others combined, so of course it has lots of topics not present in other languages. Not to mention cultural differences that make a word less useful in other countries, as I previously mentioned.

The purpose of mentioning streets and stroads is to differentiate them from roads. It simply doesn't matter that streets are barely mentioned and stroads aren't mentioned at all. Note that the "lead follows body" thing you linked is from an explanatory essay, not a policy — it's just somebody's advise on how to write a well-focused lead section. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

Shall we got a WP:3O? We still do need a source, and the lead guideline says the same on no unique info in the lead (MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

As a native speaker I think "thoroughfare" is too difficult a word for the first sentence.

Totally off the top of my head and trying to relax after hard thinking on another article - as "street" is defined separately is it possible to have a road where cars are barred? If not could we take the Collins definition above and remove "ride" giving: "a long piece of hard ground which is built between two places so that people can drive easily from one place to the other"? Alternatively the Cambridge dictionary definition above of "a long, hard surface built for vehicles to travel along" would be fine I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

I should like to begin editing this section of the road page. It begins with the sentence "Careful design and construction of a road can reduce any negative environmental impacts."

I do not think this is a factually correct sentence. There are negative environmental impacts inherent to roads that cannot be "reduced" by careful design.

Ben Goldfarb's book "Crossings: How Road Ecology is Shaping the Future of Our Planet" details many of these inherent negatives. You cannot design the access roads give to loggers out of a road for example.

Would it be okay to start editing this section? Smallpanacea (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yes, of course, WP:bebold, but make sure you use good sources. I think you can reduce environmental impact with good design, as a road with plenty of pavements and cycle paths induces more sustainable transport than a car-first design. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Reply

The article mentions railroads but definitions in the article exclude railroads Nemohuman (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

A series of TAs is replacing File:Erlangen Bundesautobahn 73 Auffahrt Luftbild-20230422-RM-165734.jpg with an image of the Johor–Singapore Causeway claiming it's more notable than the previously depicted motive. While that might be true I believe that both images of the causeway (image1 and image2) have more noise in the background, obfuscating the main point of depicting a road. Autobahn image is also of better quality than the current causeway image inserted in the article. I am seeking consensus on what image should be placed in the lead. Best, A09 |(talk) 17:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply