Jump to content

Talk:Roundabout

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of roundabouts not notable?

[edit]

I just edited the list of Tram roundabouts, since some construction happened in my home town and a roundabout was removed (years ago). It struck me that maintaining a list of tram roundabouts around the world in this article has these problems:

  • The list is mixed: it is partly a list of guidelines on roundabout design from around the world, and partly a list of notable (?) tram roundabouts.
  • Not very interesting to readers who are looking for information about roundabouts, traffic circles. It is difficult to determine whether a particular city's tram roundabout is notable or not, but I would argue that each such example of a roundabout, or roundabout design guideline, fails to reach WP:NOTE.
  • Attracts editors' vanity edits about their hometown, inflating the size of the article over time. Each country or city with tramways most likely has their own tram roundabouts, so such a list would be quite large if it were to be made exhaustive. WP:INDISCRIMINATE
  • The list as of 2024-08-16 is poorly sourced, with references on only three out of 17 bullets.
  • Difficult to keep updated and accurate.

Hence, I am proposing to remove the list of tram roundabouts.

Jolta (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal Please do not modify it.

The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of {requested article} into this talk page's article was: Consensus Reached–Awaiting Merge.
— — — — —
The consensus is to merge, as articles describe virtually the same thing, albeit with differing rules by location which are easily described in the resultant article. Editor t b w i l l i e makes a strong MoS argument to merge. @Intelati: –per volunteer request– please proceed. Thank you. Non-Administrative closure– GenQuest "Talk to Me" 12:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A formal request has been received to merge Traffic circle into Roundabout; dated: March 2018. Proposer's Rationale: A traffic circle and roundabout are the same thing. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This topic was discussed before at Talk:Roundabout/Archive 2#On whether a traffic circle is different from a roundabout, above on this talk page. There didn't seem to be much agreement then, but there does seem to be a difference between the topics of the two articles. I think they could be merged, but more care will have to go into making sure the difference between a Roundabout and a traffic circle is properly highlighted. GamerMan7799 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There also seems to be additional discussion already on this topic at the following places, some of which occurred with the discussion to merge Traffic Circle and Rotary: Talk:Traffic circle#Merge with roundabout, Talk:Roundabout/Archive 2#Rotary?, Talk:Traffic Circle#(Rotary intersection) Merge, and Talk:Roundabout/Archive 2#Lead. It seems this was a pretty controversial topic. GamerMan7799 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I've pointed out above, this seems to be a pretty controversial topic, so I might as well throw my two cents into the ring. I think that the topics can be merged as long as there is great care taken to explain the difference between the two in their sections. GamerMan7799 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as they are synonyms of each other. Oxford dictionaries defines them as follows:
    • Roundabout: "NOUN / British / A road junction at which traffic moves in one direction round a central island to reach one of the roads converging on it. / North American term traffic circle or rotary"[1]
    • traffic circle "NOUN / A road junction at which traffic moves in one direction round a central island to reach one of the roads converging on it; a roundabout."[2] -- DeFacto (talk). 19:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I hear consensus (malformed signature by lomrjyo ) 00:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are two different things - if you haven't grasped that you haven't read the two articles, and the discussions above. Unfortunately the names for them seem to have been used in different and contradictory ways in different times and places. Merging the two is likely to just create a more confusing article. The OED is hardly a specialized source, and the definitions are vague and general. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"If you don't agree with me you haven't read the articles" is not an argument. If you described what you thought the difference was, that would be the start of an argument. As far as I can see, neither article succeeds in defining any kind of valid difference. The closest either comes is with U.S. Department of Transportation terminology, but the US DoT does not dictate common language usage, even in the U.S., and it certainly should not be the basis for how Wikipedia treats the subject.--Ericjs (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is described below (as well as in the articles). Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is stated in the 'Traffic Circle' article. 'Traffic Circle' can refer to any rotary, while 'Roundabout' refers specifically to a rotary in which traffic merges directly with traffic within the circle. Whether this difference is significant or widely agreed upon is up for debate. For the time, being, I will Oppose the merge as there is a noticeable difference with how the terms are connotated. Flameoguy (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Roundabout and traffic circle are synonyms.Knobbly (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Among other major differences, traffic circles have priority for cars entering, whereas roundabouts have priority for those on the roundabout. They are very different. Roundabouts have a different history and follow different rules and have wildly different shape and safety from traffic circles.GliderMaven (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Changed my vote to support. They're not different things, they're just variations on the same theme. And the traffic circle article is short enough that it can be merged, otherwise a sub-article could be used. Traffic circles work differently in different places, and a modern roundabout is basically just a subset of that. GliderMaven (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support They are fundamentally the same thing. Coverage in the two articles overlaps and IMO the encyclopedia would benefit from them being discussed in a single article, explaining the differences, use of terminology, and transition from one to the other in some places. It's not clear to me that "traffic circle" always means "give way to entering traffic" in contrast to the so-called modern roundabout's "give way to circling traffic", especially where the rules have changed. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The angle the roads join in a traffic circle are still different though, they join tangentially to ensure you crash extra fast, whereas in a roundabout they join at right angles to slow the cars down. So unless they change the entire road layout, it's still a traffic circle, not a roundabout.GliderMaven (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Read the lead of the traffic circle article. It explains the differences. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right here in the 3rd paragraph: The U.S. Department of Transportation adopted the term modern roundabout to distinguish those that require entering drivers to give way to others. This article follows that convention and refers to other types as traffic circles or rotaries. The paragraph above that also explains the dictionary definition is the same but we are also conveying how the operation of the modern roundabout is different than the traffic circle. If the article can properly flow in a way such as traffic circle → roundabout → modern roundabout → note how the modern roundabout contrasts with the traffic circle then it would be a safe support. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious Support I may be in position to merge the articles if another closes this dicussion as merge. --intelati/talk 00:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AmericanAir88 Blogcoal (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for three reasons. (1) There is one basic concept being explained by these two articles: an intersection in which all approaching traffic merges into a circular roadway. Such details as who gets right-of-way when, how many lanes are in the circle, the angle of the merge, etc., are subsidiary to this basic concept. One wouldn't argue for separate articles on T-intersections with 3-way stops, T-intersections where cross traffic doesn't stop, T-intersections with traffic lights, T-intersections where the through road has four rather than two lanes, T-intersections where speed-calming infrastructure is in place, etc. (2) In common usage (as distinct from traffic engineer jargon), the terms roundabout and traffic circle and rotary are synonyms. Which word you use depends not on the design of the intersection but on what regional dialect you speak. The article should definitely explain that there is this thing called a "modern roundabout" that differs from traditional rotaries/traffic circles/roundabouts in that it always (rather than sometimes) has a speed-reducing geometry and always (rather than sometimes) forces approaching traffic to yield to circulating traffic. (3) Even if we stipulate that UK roundabouts have always all been yield-on-entry, and all non-UK "roundabouts" are constructed to modern standards, the three terms "roundabout," "rotary" and "traffic circle" can still all refer to intersections on both sides of the "high speed vs. low speed" split, and on both sides of the "one lane vs. multi-lane" split; not all UK roundabouts are "modern roundabouts" by geometry. Thus the distinction that opponents of the merge are trying to make of roundabout vs. traffic circle/rotary is not absolute; the more accurate distinction is "modern roundabout" vs. some traffic circles/some rotaries/some traditional roundabouts. Perhaps a separate page at Modern roundabout is warranted, but the general term "roundabout," which predates the 1990s "modern" definition, is the same thing as -- or at least has too much overlap to be separated from -- "traffic circle" and "rotary." ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 05:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This already is the separate page for modern roundabout it even redirects here already. GliderMaven (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis that a traffic circle is a type of roundabout with different rules to a standard one. There should be a "traffic circle" section. IWI (chat) 15:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • tentative Support as there is alot of overlap and might be best as a single inclusive article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support because it seems that the terms are only distinguished in technical discourse.  Remember, Wikipedia article titles are not official names, but rather the term most likely to be searched for.  Just because roundabouts and traffic circles are distinct does not mean they merit separate articles.  We should have two articles iff the theoretical page Differences between roundabouts and traffic circles was so long that it violates Wikipedia's conventions on article length, and such is not the case. 128.135.98.225 (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support already has a section in the Roundabout article, no need to separate article. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 00:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose they are synonyms only colloquially. There is a critical difference regarding right of way rules at the intersections. --В²C ☎ 22:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 12:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of this template can be found here.

 Done Needforspeed888 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like an adequate merger job to me - it likely just to cause further confusion. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stretched Roundabout

[edit]

There is an example here (Junction 28, Newport City, United Kingdom) This is still in the process of being finished (completion sometime in September 2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.8.79 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Points of Conflict

[edit]
"Because there are only ten points of conflict (compared with 8 for a conventional single lane roundabout, or between 32 and 64 with traffic signal control), this design is often safer as well"

There are more points of conflict (10 versus 8) yet it is safer? Mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:610:F82:9B9:39E0:B103:8BC4 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roundabouts and Rotaries are not the same thing

[edit]

Not according to this http://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/331 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.126.186 (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the top of this graphic is carelessly calling a "roundabout" is more accurately described on the bottom half of the graphic as a Modern roundabout. In locations where the local English vernacular has been using the term "roundabout" since before the 1990s, non-engineers would use that term to describe both intersections pictured in the graphic. Meanwhile, most folks in places where "rotary" is the term of longstanding currency would call both intersection pictured a "rotary". ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 23:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Filter in turns

[edit]

The reference number 40 is not accurate in saying that almost all of jersey roundabouts are filter in turn. The main non filter ones on island are North Beaumont Hill, airport road, tunnel, St Aubins Road, Rouge Boullion Bagatelle Road Top. Filter in turn roundabouts only account for Beaumont Hill South, St Saviour’s Road / L’Avenue et Dolmen du Pré des Lumières, St Saviour’s Road / St Mark’s Road, Springfield Road / La Petite Rue de Val Plaisont. Therefore not almost all Wokingjames (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplification in the section "Dutch-style roundabouts for bicycles and pedestrians" leads to a contradiction

[edit]

This section states that Dutch roundabouts give priority to cyclists yet the image next to it shows an example of a roundabout giving priority to motorists as seen by the shark teeth on the cycle path. This is not an error in the image. This second type exists as well, for instance at 53.035, 5.6675 or at 52.933, 4.756. Adding the information of the motor-priority roundabouts might be against the spirit of the section so replacing the image might be the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.98.196 (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the text and the image contradict.
I should note that most Dutch roundabouts inside urban areas give right of way to cyclists. The bike lane is considered part of the roundabout, even if that bike lane is protected. Outside of those areas the image is accurate. The bicycle crossing is further removed from the roundabout and cyclists must give way to cars. 83.137.122.156 (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"circular" in the definition

[edit]

In the first sentence, I wonder if there's a better word to use to describe roundabouts, not all of which are circles. Here's a classic example in Bootle https://goo.gl/maps/1u9VSNpNSqVcZshk7 There are also polygonal or kidney-bean shaped roundabouts, but I can't think of a word which describes a closed loop. BWDuncan (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“roughly round”? —Tamfang (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editor

[edit]

I’m not the COI editor here, but I would like to make a request to add information on behalf of User:Daniel.fadur who recently edited this article, but I reverted it as it seemed to be about themselves. Please see the discussion at User talk:Daniel.fadur and the edit in question at Special:Diff/1160567589. Fork99 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

[edit]
Japan was first introduced to roundabouts in September 2014 to stop major accidents and traffic jams.

This implies that the first roundabout in Japan was made then, but the ref:

"Roundabout opens in north Japan after lesson learned from 2011 quake, tsunami". Mainichi Daily News. 2020-01-06. Retrieved 2023-11-20.

says otherwise. Please suggest alternate wording. —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roundabout&oldid=1240596340"