Template talk:Infobox road

Edit request 10 April 2025

Description of suggested change: In the Module:Infobox road/sections used for various road sections, both terminus_a# and terminus_b# are indicated as "From". Rather terminus_b# should have the parameter named as "To". Current usage attached for reference.

{{Infobox road/sandbox
| name = Road a
| terminus_a = City A
| terminus_b = City B
| terminus_a1 = City A1
| terminus_b1 = City B1
}}

Road a
Major junctions
From	City A
To	City B
Section 1
Terminus	City A1
Terminus	City B1

{{Infobox road/sandbox
| name = Road z
| terminus_a = North Town
| terminus_b = South City
| direction_a = North
| direction_b = South
| terminus_a1 = North Village
| terminus_b1 = South Town
| direction_a1 = North
| direction_b1 = South
}}

Road z
Major junctions
North end	North Town
South end	South City
Section 1
North end	North Village
South end	South Town

Diff:

−

if dir_b ~= '' then infobox_args[directionBn] = dir_b .. " end" else infobox_args[directionBn] = "From" end

+

if dir_b ~= '' then infobox_args[directionBn] = dir_b .. " end" else infobox_args[directionBn] = "To" end

M² (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That module has been essentially unchanged since 16 December 2021, so I'm a bit wary of making this change without further testing. Can you please link to an article that demonstrates the problem? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems as though "from" and "to" are arbitrary labels. I see the word "from" in this case to mean "extending from", which can go at either end of a road or even to both ends. I do see where confusion may arise, but I don't think this edit is the answer. Who gets to say where a road begins and ends? someone in the "from" city, or someone in the "to" city? Objective observers might scratch their heads. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

An example where you can see both Froms is Delhi–Meerut_Expressway. The first section of the road has a From/To in the infobox but all other sections are shown as From/From. I agree with the requestor that the change should be made. I'll not do it immediatly though to allow for any further discussion. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. Someone in Miami says, "US 1 goes from Miami to New York." A New Yorker then says, "No it doesn't, US 1 goes from New York to Miami!" The "From"s should be replaced with "Starting from" or "Extending from". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The above examples have been changed to the sandbox, and Module:Infobox road/sections/sandbox has been altered to "Extending from" "Terminus" to illustrate editor Jonesey95's solution. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"From" in this case is a default, which can be changed (and usually is changed) with the |direction_x#= parameter as shown in the second example. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

What if we changed the default "From" and "To" to both read "Terminus"? That is a neutral term that just means "the end of this section". Editors can change the text to read "XXX end" using |direction_a1= etc. as Paine Ellsworth says above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Changed to "Terminus" in the sandbox as shown above. "Terminus" is a good choice to replace "From". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

This at least is a better solution as two "From"s are odd. Also, in the same template, there needs to be uniformity as the first part references "From" and "To", while the sections have two "From"s. Both can be combined under the same label as "Terminii" similar to Template:Infobox rail line?

M² (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Both can't/shouldn't be combined because the intermediate junctions are listed in-between, such that the overall order progresses from one terminus to the other. The two termini should always have a direction listed, but if they don't, it should be From and To. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

And it must be asked again: how are the "From" and "To" determined? Do editors just arbitrarily pick and choose which terminus should be "From" and which terminus should be "To"? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The usual method depends on the locale. In the US, we start at the southern or western to follow the milepost direction. In other countries, there's are other standardized methods, just as the zero milestone or kilometer zero, etc. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"The usual method..." That's key, isn't it. It's all explained in the Milestone article. Seems several US states have their own way to mile-mark their roads (except the Interstates). I still say the best solution to all this is Jonesey95's choice of "Terminus". That is the least ambiguous, the least OR, the most objective, concise way to label... the end of the road. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: since the article text needs to progress from one end to the other in the prose route description, even though the roadway is question is probably bi-directional, that text is going to arbitrarily run from one end to the other, A → B. The infobox then should match the directionality from the prose.

In any case, it really should be an error of sorts, to omit the direction label that accompanies the terminus. Those two labels could be west/east or east/west, south/north or north/south, etc. They could even be CW and CCW on a beltway. The "From" and "To" are really a default when someone hasn't properly used the template to display something, but at least it gives some clue about the content of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 15:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

One of the From/From pairs in the code was changed to a From/To on 14 Dec 2021 but the other pair was left as From/From. There should be some consistency, so they should either both be From/From or both From/To. I've also expanded the examples above. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the determination of From/To, it might be arbitrary in many cases as all roads do not have standardized way of designating a source and a destination. At least for the sake of consistency, it should either be From/To everywhere (where sources are available designating a From/To, it can be used and for other cases, it would be left at the behest of the editor) or if there is consensus, it can be changed to some general label such as "Terminus" both at the top and in the segment sections. M² (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The original template didn't have the sections, and it has long used From/To. When the capability to add sections was added, my memory is that they also defaulted to From/To. Any edits that changed that to From/From would be an error, IMHO, and that should be reversed to restore From/To in the sections as the default. As mentioned above, the defaults should be treated as an error in most cases because the directionality should be specified. Imzadi 1979 → 15:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Pending more substantive improvements or a consensus on the use of "Terminus", I have made the From/To labeling consistent in both sections. I don't love the default "From/To", but having "From/From" in one if/else section and "From/To" in the other section was inconsistent and worse. Feel free to continue this discussion and to enhance this possibly interim cleanup step. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

That was my work in 2021. From/From was a stupid copy/paste mistake. It was supposed to be "From/To". –Fredddie™ 04:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

That was my guess, but I didn't want to label any person or edit as stupid except for myself and my own edits. This is why we have collaborative editing. Keep on going! – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 7 July 2025

Description of suggested change: Add piped link to NHS parameter

Diff:

−

|label18 = <abbr title="National Highway System">NHS</abbr>

+

|label18 = [[National Highway System (United States)| <abbr title="National Highway System">NHS</abbr>]]

–Dream out loud (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 July 2025

Can you add local function AMR to the module? AMR browselinks should direct to Arab Mashreq International Road Network. Editor Socks (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-functional params

According to the documentation, the parameters previous_dab and next_dab can be used to disambiguate the previous and next routes, respectively. However, these parameters don't actually do anything at all. I think the issue is traceable to Module:Road data/browse; at lines 44 and 49 we can see that the values of previous_dab and next_dab are included in the argument to the functions previousRoute() and nextRoute(), but the definitions of those two functions at lines 14 and 26 never make any use of those values. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The infobox uses modules to handle the graphics, links and abbreviations, just as {{jct}} does. So for highways in Michigan, it would use Module:Road data/strings/USA/MI, and it should pass through the dab needed to that module to customize the links. Is that not happening? Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not happening. Please see User:R'n'B/sandbox, where I've copied an infobox that appears on the page A38(M) motorway. In the first infobox, I've omitted the previous_dab parameter; in the second infobox, I've included it. As you can see, both infoboxes contain the same incorrect link to the disambiguation page A8(M) motorway in the output. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I was summoned so I'll reply. The infobox is working as intended. The AM entry on Module:Road data/strings/GBR did not accept a dab, so no matter what you did it wouldn't work. I believe dab has been added and everything should work now. –Fredddie™ 16:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue is not with the template passing through the dab, but with Module:Road data/strings/GBR not accepting it. It was missing the dab from the AM type. Adding that with this edit corrected the issue. The example in your sandbox now works at it should. Imzadi 1979 → 16:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

mapframe implementation

I noticed this template doesn't have mapframe implemented in the standard manner (cf. Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes). So I implemented it that way in the sandbox.

However, I noticed that the check for unknown parameters was already aware of a subset of mapframe* parameters, but I could find no further implementation.

The code at Module:Infobox road/map seems to me like it only renders normal images. It does seem to interact with Wikidata already, but only where wikidata:Property:P15 exists.

Does anyone remember what happened there? --Joy (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

All I found was this 2020 test by @Fredddie. I guess that just never went live.

I'll proceed then. --Joy (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Now with those changes I assume, if |map= is not specified but wikidata:Property:P15 still exists, two maps will now be displayed on articles like Cairo–Dakar Highway, California State Route 3, and European route E22. Does anybody like this? Especially like the European route E22 case where both maps basically display the route map (because I assume the wikidata:Property:P402 OpenStreetMap relation ID is available for it)? Or like the California State Route 3 case where the static image map shows the route, but the mapframe only can find and show the wikidata:Property:P625 coordinates? The mapframe on Cairo–Dakar Highway seems more problematic because the mapframe is showing both the P625 coordinate and all of the highway's non-continuous constructed segments, with the map centered in the default zoom setting in the middle of nowhere as a result. My point in that last example is that all roads cannot be adequately represented on a map by a single specific coordinate at such a default zoom setting, and therefore should probably have a manual check before it goes live. Also keep in mind that in the 2020 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mapframe maps in infoboxes, there was no consensus to have mapframes to be on by default (i.e. |onByDefault=). Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say that the double map issue is quite problematic for the reasons outlined. I've just removed the updates from the live template as a result. Further discussion is needed before this change is implemented, and until the comments above by Zzyzx11, there was no discussion of this change. Imzadi 1979 → 15:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This is an implementation issue, we just need to fix the condition, we don't have to destroy the entire feature because of this easily fixable bug. --Joy (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

With regard to the 2020 RFC, the onByDefault logic is not banned by it, it's just conditional by default, which was in fact the intent of my code, it merely didn't work out this way by accident. --Joy (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

BTW, with regard to single points on inherently line maps, I actually happened to bring this up at Template talk:Infobox mapframe#a case of not rendering, please feel free to continue on that topic there :) --Joy (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

BTW2, as it happens, it looks like I also came across the same issue last year at Template talk:Infobox road/Archive 8#mapframe maps 2024 but it got archived without a conclusion at the time. D'oh! :D --Joy (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

OK so the current sandbox code fixes the zoom on the first and the third examples by using the length_* parameters, we just have to map the defaults as we do elsewhere.

I also added an attempt at exclusion of P15 from the defaults, and P15 lookups in the test cases. The intricate sandbox code here was buggy as well. --Joy (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, if I try to enable mapframe on the CA 3 infobox, it shows me 0°N 0°E / 0; 0. I'm not sure what's wrong, its d:Q460834 seems to show a P625 property. --Joy (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

default mapframe visuals

As I've been working on a mapframe inside infobox road, I noticed how {{maplink-road}} is basically a workaround for that. But anyway, it also has some default style changes from the default mapframe that should probably be discussed.

For example, it has had this edit since late 2022, where @BMACS1002 said: US Roads style guide specifies darker red for stroke color, and the greater Highway project recognises this standard

But I can't find that in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards#Maps, and the linked Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists also doesn't seem to mention a dark red. Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways#Maps and images likewise doesn't seem to talk about this.

I see a number of red lines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#Topographic maps, but also black and white and yellow ones, and no single default. --Joy (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force BMACS1002 14:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I see this change was made also in late 2022 in this edit by @Fredddie. The only discussion about that seems to be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Archive 2#Business route interactive map line color, but that was about red-green color blindness and using blue for the secondary color, not about shades of red.

The reason I noticed this darker red is also visual - because it seems to blend too much into the background that often has a lot of shades of orange in the base tile context. The 'legacy' bright red default stands out more and is used everywhere else. --Joy (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)