Talk:Bowtie (road)

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bowtie

I thought a bowtie was two streets intersecting each other at a slight angle, like Times Square? Sagittarian Milky Way 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowtie I found on .info and .org pages only. The DoTs to no refer to such name. It may be theory. --Hans Haase (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbbell interchange

Dumbbell interchange currently redirects to bowtie (road). However, the term is also defined at interchange (road) and diamond interchange. The definition should exist in only one of the articles, with a brief summary and a link in the other two. Crossposted to the other articles. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Gareth Griffith-Jones, do we know that Bowtie is indeed the desired target for Dumbbell interchange? A bowtie seems to be a road intersection, while the dumbbell is an interchange somewhat analagous to the intersection type. I'm not sure if the term bowtie is universal, as roundabouts in general are still somewhat rare in the US. I also wouldn't change redirects until we're sure where they will end up (or even if Dumbbell is promoted to its own article...) Thoughts? --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the article and the the technology: Bowtie and dumbbell are different. The dumbbell has a bridge and is an intersection. The bowtie is a simple streetcrossing and has no bridge at all. This is totally different. The only thing in common they have is the similar bird view. Remove the dumbbell image from the bowtie and have de dumbbell it's on article, but still add each other: "Do not to be confused with ..." --Hans Haase (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Chaswmsday, I have to confess to my saying that both "dumbell" and "bowtie" are new to me in this connection. I shall make enquiries, although I suspect neither are used here in the UK. Indeed, I was intrigued to see the hyperlink yesterday on our M40 article, linking to the two terms, and my clicking on it introduced me to both. From their pithy, accurate semantics, I would add that I imagine their origination to be the US. Far too smart for we Brits. Now, to answer you question above. My wish would be to not link the two. I agree with you here, and I agree with Hans Haase in their each having their own article. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 15:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbell, at least in the UK, is different to what is shown in the diagram - a Dumbbell in the UK has two full roundabouts (see http://goo.gl/maps/ttaVo for an example). The junction shown in the image is what we call a "Dogbone" Interchange. Njlawley (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Njlawley, that makes it clearer. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all feedback, the bowtie may be new, may be origin on these .info and .org pages. Anybody know a built one? --Hans Haase (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an official source for the naming of "Dogbone" Interchange? --Hans Haase (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Dumbbell: Two full roundabouts

Dogbone : Two teardrop roundabouts

"Bow-tie" : not built,not even similar, not to be included in same article.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 21:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Btw. I am using Dia (software) for the example sketches and Inkscape to finish up the svg export file. I'll create some new ones since the names are clear defined. Maybe I'll GIMP the older ones. These drawings will be here --Hans Haase (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good man! Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 12:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Far too smart for we Brits", @Gareth?. From other discussions in which I've been involved, y'all Brits have the terms carriageway and road verge, while we are often stuck with circumlocutions or a jumble of obscure terms. (I don't come from a dialect where "y'all" is typically used; I just think English needs a plural form for "you".)
I guess these (http://goo.gl/maps/WQ6Tv) interchanges on Keystone Parkway in/near Carmel, Indiana, USA are dogbones?

Or perhaps, merely compressed roundabouts?? --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too, thank @Hans for his cool sketches.
Now that we have another interchange type to worry about :) ... do we have any citations for them? I've found [1] from the US Federal Highway Administration about "the dog bone roundabout configuration ... at diamond-interchange intersections".
I've found "dumbbell" [2] from the Kildare (Ireland) County Council. Is a local government "official" enough a reference, or should I try to find the "National Roads Design Office" mentioned? Also, [3] from the UK; and [4], from New Zealand.
It looks like roundabout#Raindrop roundabouts also discusses them, where they're referred to as "raindrop" or "teardrop" interchanges. Where, oh where, are the proper homes for all of these terms? --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha! Isn't this just what we enjoy ... a simple, tiny revision (in this instance, your M40 edit, here) ... and we open Pandora's Box. It is what I call, "The Magic of Wikipedia". Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 05:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those interchanges on Keystone Parkway are good examples, I would say. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 16:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably stating the obvious, but the larger versions of these are cheaper to construct than standard grade separated junctions, because they require less bridge works, etc. -- Trevj (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this real? What a mess...

Is this real ? The present article does not mention a specific bowtie junction and though the picture/diagram is clear how it could work, there is no photo of an existing bowtie.

The only "reference" and three of the four external links (four ex-links, a bit too much) all point to PDF's. The only ref and all ex-links are all clearly not dedicated to this sort of junction but have a more general subject.

Also the one supposed ref is not really valid as a reference on Wikipedia, with solely the text "Jonathan Reid, P.E.: Unconventional Arterial Intersection Design July 2004, P. 66-67, retrieved on 9 February 2013". By whom? and where? was it published and why should we trust? the unknown publisher and the supposed writer Jonathan Reid? After seeing this mess, it did not surprise me to see that this only ref [5] is now a very dead link. And three of the four external links are also dead (completely dead or redirected to a non-relevant page).

I am really shocked that on the en-wikipedia nobody seems to care about the above mentioned issues (I have to say/dare to say this now because there were allready many reactions on this talk page about minor issues, so people were seeing that this page is not impeccable, yet they chose to only react on minor issues). Though Bowtie (road) is surely not the most important article, we still have to care for the quality of Wikipedia. This article evidently is not acceptable in the present state.

yours , --Paulbe (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bowtie (road). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bowtie (road). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930055756/http://www.urbanstreet.info/1st_symp_proceedings/Ec019_e3.pdf to http://www.urbanstreet.info/1st_symp_proceedings/Ec019_e3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]