Talk:List of British Columbia provincial highways

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Canada Roads: British Columbia High‑importance

This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Canada RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Canada RoadsCanada road transport articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics:
/
	British Columbia

BC Project Assessment

See note at Category talk:British Columbia provincial highways. --KenWalker | Talk 20:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Informal highway numbers"

The following are listed on [1] but not [2]:

Atlin Highway

Atlin Road exists as an article

Called "Road 40" locally, sometimes Highway 40, sections of it have their own names, e.g. Moha Road from the jnctn in Lillooet to Moha; "Carpenter Lake Road" is small-r and not meant in a capital-r sense; before inundation this stretch was the Bridge River Road, w/wo including hte Mission Mountain Road; the Terzaghi-Moha stretch was originally called "the New Road" and generally goes by the name "the Canyon"; maybe a better name here would be Lillooet-Gold Bridge Road; I'm pretty sure the official designation for its continuation is Gold Bridge-Bralorne Road, although I think designation "40" ends at Bralorne, not Gold Bridge; have to check with DoH I guess...Skookum1 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] shows Highway 103 as "Road 103", and also includes Road 117 (Upper Halfway) and Road 188 (Doig Road)

I'm very curious where these numbers came from; did the Ministry of Transportation assign them? --NE2 15:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, they're "road" not "highway" numbers, which I guess local parlance elevated to informal highway status; so much so that I thought the Lillooet-Gold Bridge route was a highway now, but apparently it's not (yet).Skookum1 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some former numbers

1935 and 1938 maps and [4]

A Southern Trans-Provincial Highway, Port Alberni to Crowsnest Pass (now Hwy 4, Hwy 19, Hwy 1, Hwy 8, Hwy 5A, Hwy 3)
B, Bella Coola to Kicking Horse Pass (now Hwy 20, Hwy 97, Hwy 1)
C Northern Trans-Provincial Highway, Prince Rupert to Yellowhead Pass (now Hwy 16)
N Island Highway, Victoria to Sayward (now Hwy 1, Hwy 19)
R Pacific Highway, Blaine to New Westminster (now Hwy 15)
S Cariboo Highway, Spences Bridge to Prince George (now Hwy 1, Hwy 97)
T Okanagan Highway, North Thompson Highway?, Oroville to Grindrod (now Hwy 97); 1935 map shows it continuing north from Kamloops on Hwy 5
U, Eureka to Vermilion Pass (not Golden on maps) (now Hwy 93)

1947 map and [5]

Hwy 1, Victoria to Sayward (now Hwy 1, Hwy 19) and Vancouver to Kicking Horse Pass (still there)
Hwy 1A, Parksville to Port Alberni (now Hwy 4)
Hwy 1B, Radium to Vermilion Pass (now Hwy 93)
Hwy 2, Cache Creek to Prince George (now Hwy 97)
Hwy 3, Hope (or Spences Bridge?) to Crowsnest Pass (still there)
Hwy 4, Eureka (not Cranbrook on 1947 map) to Golden (now Hwy 93, Hwy 95)
Hwy 5, Oroville to Grindrod (now Hwy 97)
Hwy 6, Nelway to Vernon (still there)
Hwy 7, Vancouver to Harrison Hot Springs (still there)
Hwy 16, Prince Rupert to Yellowhead Pass? (still there)
Hwy 99, Blaine to New Westminster (now Hwy 15)

--NE2 11:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resource page of sorts

Just happened to find this while looking for something else, it has some useful historical bits in it about various routes, didn't know where else to drop the link so this'll do....Skookum1 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highways basemap

I found this while puttering around; it was used as a location map for Barkerville, but that's the only thing it's linked to. Qyd made it back in '06 and it's not been used since; maybe could use some changes in colour/line but it's what I've felt was more suitable as a location map, either it or a coloured topography map, rather than the regional district maps. Anyway it seems like it could/should be used for maps of the highways; easy enough to colour in a route in a bright red or other colour no? I'm not a graphics person so would do a messy job, but while it's cumbersome for tiny/short ones obviously the Crowsnest, Yellowhead, Trans-Canada, Cariboo, Coquihalla, Hwy 6, Stewart-Cassiar etc can be well-illustrated using it. Anyone care to pick a colour and go for it?Skookum1 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnumbered Routes

I was looking at the BC Landmark Kilometer Inventory and I noticed a 900-series of unnumbered roads (a summary of the routes starts on the .pdf page 12). The numbers are generally derived by region and then a segment is assigned to a specific route. I was wondering if a separate table should be added to the BC provincial highways page which lists all the routes and their lengths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuzikMachine (talk • contribs) 21:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that the signs in question were removed from the article, apparently due in part to the discussion linked above. I have reverted that edit, as the discussion DID NOT result in the deletion thereof, and only previous versions of said images are non-free, as per their respective Wikimedia pages, not the current ones being used in the article itself. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I do believe that the deletion of the images was erroneous on these grounds. Fhsig13 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FFD discussion was closed by an administrator as "Remove from list article". The discussion was relisted, but you can find the final version of it at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 14#Non-free road signs used in list article. If you disagree with the close, then please follow WP:CLOSE and express your concerns with the closing admin Jo-Jo Eumerus on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the discussion did result in disallowing their use in the list. The reason being that there is not enough argument and support in the discussion to show that WP:NFCC#8 is met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an immense amount of contextual significance in the mere fact that these are the only unique highway markers in BC. If that isn't enough then I don't know what is. I backed out of the discussion, because the jargon being used made little sense to me, and any case I made was simply shot to pieces. As far as I read only the previous versions of the image are prohibited from use, NOT the current ones I put in. If I need to redo the free-use rationales I will, but if we can't use them anywhere, somebody ought to request a speedy delete, as it makes no sense having them anywhere on wikipedia. Fhsig13 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The close was to only remove the images from this particular article, not to delete them from Wikipedia altogether. They are still being used for primary identification purposes in their respective stand-alone articles. That doesn’t mean they might never deleted or even nominated for deletion; it just means they won’t be deleted as a result of this particular FFD discussion. Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I've finally uncovered and implemented a solution we call hopefully live with: upon further research, the images of the markers found on each highway's actual page are actually versions uploaded by other editors, likely those that created the respective pages, over time. These versions were uploaded through wikipedia as fair-use, non-free images, not through wikimedia! I think this might alleviate our copyright issues and quell this long-standing debate! Fhsig13 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it really works. The non-free use of the files was discussed at FFD and the close by Jo-Jo Eumerus was that the files should not be used in this article. As was pointed out in the FFD discussion, each use of a non-free content needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and the consensus reached at FFD was that their respective uses in this article doesn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus clarified this for you in his above post. The FFD discussion took into account the fact the files were uploaded by others as non-free content to use for primary indentification purposes in stand-alone articles about each route. There didn't appear to be anyone claiming that the non-free use of the images in those articles didn't comply with relevant policy. The non-free uses of the images in this article, however, was determined to not be compliant ~~per~~ which is why they were only removed from this article and not deleted altogether.

So, if you disagree with this consensus or feel you've found "new evidence" that should be considered, please follow the instructions listed at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Trying to get get around a consensus, even when you truly believe you're right, by re-adding the files like you did a little while ago will only lead to them being removed again like was done here by SounderBruce, and quite possibly lead others to assume you're not here and you're unwilling to listen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to add a missing "anyone" (as underlined) to second ot last sentence of the first paragraph and strikethrough a stray "per" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. -- 07:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)][reply]

You have been reported. Watch out. Fhsig13 (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Interstate Highways in British Columbia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Interstate Highways in British Columbia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Interstate Highways in British Columbia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]