Talk:U.S. Route 6

I guess US-6 travels several hundred miles across Nevada, but that's not reflected in the milage box in the article. Where can we find accurage milage info to reflect that? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

On and off, and on and off, and on again, U.S. Highway 6 is driving me nuts trying to write the junctions in Colorado. Interstate 70, U.S. Highway 25, Interstate 76, not to mention where in the world U.S. 6 is in Denver apart from its freeway section. Massive discontinuities are too much for my brain to process! So I did some research, and found this site for U.S. 6 within Colorado: http://www.mesalek.com/colo/us6.html. Please, HELP ME!!!! California, where I'm from, is actually much easier than this! --Geopgeop 13:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, the stress...Reply

It looks like US 6 is unsigned whenever it overlaps with an Interstate highway. I took a look at the Colorado DOT website and from what I understand, US 6 is something like this:

• Utah state line
• Mile 0.00-11.21: on I-70
• Mile 11.21-26.00: Section "A" (Mack, Fruita, Grand Junction)
• Mile 26.00-30.27: on I-70 Business
• Mile 30.27-34.38: Section "B" (Grand Junction)
• Mile 34.38-37.50: on I-70 Business

th*Mile 37.50-45.82: Section "C" (Grand Junction, Palisade)

• Mile 45.82-65.41: on I-70
• Mile 65.41-75.42: Section "M" (Parachute) [on I-70 frontage road]
• Mile 75.42-88.61: on I-70
• Mile 88.61-91.00: Section "L" (Rifle)
• Mile 91.00-92.00: On CO 13
• Mile 92.00-110.80: Section "D" (Rifle, Silt City, Newcastle)
• Mile 110.80-142.00: on I-70
• Mile 142.00-174.54: Section "E" (Gypsum, Eagle, Avon)
• Mile 174.54-208.66: on I-70
• Mile 208.66-229.33: Section "F" (Silverthorne, Dillon)
• Mile 229.33-257.08: on I-70
• Mile 257.08-284.48: Section "G" (Golden, Lakewood, Denver)
• Mile 284.48-291.08: on I-25 and I-70
• Mile 291.08-296.00: Section "H" (Commerce, Denver)
• Mile 296.00-343.72: on I-76
• Mile 343.72-346.70: Section "I" (Wiggins)
• Mile 346.70-371.69: on I-76
• Mile 371.69-467.28: Section "J" (Hillrose, Merino, Sterling, Fleming, Haxtun, Paoli, Holyoke)
• Nebraska state line

Here's an junction/interchange list US and interstate highways. This excludes junctions when US 6 is multiplexed with I-70 or I-76.

• 0.00 [I-70/US 6/US 50]
• 11.21 I-70/US 50 (end multiplex)
• 26.00 I-70; US 50 (begin multiplex)
• 30.27 US 50 (end multiplex)
• 45.82 I-70
• 65.41 I-70?
• 75.42 I-70?
• 88.61 I-70
• 110.80 I-70
• 142.00 I-70
• 174.54 I-70; US 24
• 208.66 I-70
• 229.33 I-70
• ??? US 40 (begin multiplex)
• 257.18 I-70; US 40 (end multiplex)
• 275.13 US 40
• 275.65 I-70 (partial interchange)
• 284.48 I-25/US 87/US 85 (begin multiplex 85,87)
• ??? US 287
• ??? I-25/US 87 (end multiplex 87); I-70
• 291.08 I-70
• 292.72 I-270/US 36
• 296.00 I-76
• ??? US 85 (end multiplex 85)
• 343.72 I-76
• 346.70 I-76; US 34 (begin multiplex)
• ??? US 34 (end multiplex)
• 371.69 I-76 / To US 34
• 404.64 US 138
• 406.39 I-76
• 454.06 US 385
• 467.28 [US 6]

Polaron 17:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wow... yuck. Well I'll start by trying to consolidate these two lists and trying to make sense out of them below:

• 0.00 Utah state line
• Mile 0.00-11.21: on I-70
• 11.21 I-70/US 50 (end multiplex)
• Mile 11.21-26.00: Section "A" (Mack, Fruita, Grand Junction)
• 26.00 I-70; US 50 (begin multiplex)
• Mile 26.00-30.27: on I-70 Business
• 30.27 US 50 (end multiplex)
• Mile 30.27-34.38: Section "B" (Grand Junction)
• Mile 34.38-37.50: on I-70 Business
• Mile 37.50-45.82: Section "C" (Grand Junction, Palisade)
• 45.82 I-70 (begin multiplex)
• Mile 45.82-65.41: on I-70
• 65.41 I-70 (end multiplex)
• Mile 65.41-75.42: Section "M" (Parachute) [on I-70 frontage road]
• 75.42 I-70 (begin multiplex)
• Mile 75.42-88.61: on I-70
• 88.61 I-70 (end multiplex)
• Mile 88.61-91.00: Section "L" (Rifle)
• Mile 91.00-92.00: On CO 13
• Mile 92.00-110.80: Section "D" (Rifle, Silt City, Newcastle)
• 110.80 I-70 (begin multiplex)
• Mile 110.80-142.00: on I-70
• 142.00 I-70 (end multiplex)
• Mile 142.00-174.54: Section "E" (Gypsum, Eagle, Avon)
• 174.54 I-70; US 24 (begin multiplex)
• Mile 174.54-208.66: on I-70
• 208.66 I-70 (end multiplex)
• Mile 208.66-229.33: Section "F" (Silverthorne, Dillon)
• 229.33 I-70 (begin multiplex)
• Mile 229.33-257.08: on I-70
• ??? US 40 (begin multiplex)
• 257.18 I-70; US 40 (end multiplex)
• Mile 257.08-284.48: Section "G" (Golden, Lakewood, Denver)
• 275.13 US 40
• 275.65 I-70 (partial interchange)
• 284.48 I-25/US 87/US 85 (begin multiplex 85,87)
• Mile 284.48-291.08: on I-25 and I-70
• ??? US 287
• ??? I-25/US 87 (end multiplex 87); I-70
• 291.08 I-70
• Mile 291.08-296.00: Section "H" (Commerce, Denver)
• 292.72 I-270/US 36
• 296.00 I-76 (begin multiplex)
• Mile 296.00-343.72: on I-76
• ??? US 85 (end multiplex 85)
• 343.72 I-76 (end multiplex)
• Mile 343.72-346.70: Section "I" (Wiggins)
• 346.70 I-76; US 34 (begin multiplex)
• Mile 346.70-371.69: on I-76
• ??? US 34 (end multiplex)
• 371.69 I-76 / To US 34
• 404.64 US 138
• 406.39 I-76
• 454.06 US 385
• 467.28 [US 6]
• Mile 371.69-467.28: Section "J" (Hillrose, Merino, Sterling, Fleming, Haxtun, Paoli, Holyoke)
• Nebraska state line

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

So how would we put the junctions in the routebox? I would assume maybe giving the first and last instances of each U.S. and Interstate highway in each state? Should we even note concurrency in Colorado? I'd be happy if U.S. 6 was continuously concurrent through the state, but to be real, look at all of the breaks in between! I do want to stick with consistency here... (sigh) --Geopgeop 12:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm tempted to just throw out all of the U.S. Highways. The routebox will be long enough anyway. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

After all that research on the junctions... sigh...

Oh, yeah, next order of business for this article: consolidate the browseboxes for all the states into one, like with the Interstate highway articles. While California has the correct box, it should be in the bottom along with all the other states, like where Massachusetts should be as well. --Geopgeop 13:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know exactly which towns US-6 passes through that could be considered "suburbs" of Boston. I used to live in Cape Cod, and to most, the nearest town that could be even remotely considered a "suburb" of Boston is Plymouth (and that's stretching it), and US-6 does not pass through it. Wareham and points west are more properly considered to be either rural or suburbs of New Bedford. So why the revert of my deletion of "Boston" for the list of suburbs that US-6 goes through, because US-6 does not go through any of Boston's suburbs, or any town that could even remotely be though of by locals as such? (EmiOfBrie 16:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC))Reply

Plymouth county is considered part of the census definition of the Boston metropolitan area (MSA). US 6 passes through the towns of Mattapoisett, Marion, and Wareham. However, in a more logical metro area definition using town boundaries (NECTA), Mattapoisett is included in New Bedford while Marion and Wareham are included in Barnstable Town (Cape Cod). I have changed back to your version since the statement about passing through Boston outer suburbs is stretching it at best. Polaron 02:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Greeley to Provincetown along US 6, maybe extended to Long Beach with US 6 --SPUI (T - C) 11:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone sort out this business of US6-as-Roosevelt-Highway? There seem to be a number of highways designated "Theodore Roosevelt Highway", in particular the former international route from Portland, Maine to Portland, Oregon. Parts of what would become 6 were apparently used for an early "Roosevelt Midland Trail" but the great majority of my sources indicate that "Grand Army of the Republic Highway" is the correct designation for 6 in its entirety. Does anyone know where SPUI got the map showing 6 in Iowa, Nebraska and Colorado designated as "Roosevelt Highway" (with a Teddy R. icon), its date and whether it has any validity? It looks like some kind of tourist promaotion. The later US 2 between Duluth and Montana would have been a parallel Theodore Roosevelt Highway during parts of the twenties and thirties before it was officially numbered, at least judging by Wikipedia articles.68.178.50.46 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a case of where someone made the incorrect assumption of what is true in their region is true nation wide. As a similar example, I've seen quite a few sources (and even a few wikipedia articles) that treat the Lincoln Highway as synonymous with U.S. Route 30, without any context or clarification. US 30 was indeed derived from the Lincoln Highway east of the Rockies, and it is correct to equate the two if the scope of the article is local to the midwest or east coast. However, that is not even close to being true nationally, as the two routes are hundreds of miles apart in the west.

I think it's a similar situation here, while there is some significant overlap between the routes of U.S. Route 6 and what I grew up hearing called the Midland Trail (I hadn't heard it referred to as the Roosevelt Highway until recently), nationally they are not the same. However to someone whose background is where the two do overlap, they may write or depict them as being synonymous. Also, to be fair, the history of the Midland trail is significantly more complicated, it went through several re-routes, even more than what is currently described in the article; however, as the sources for some of it's route change are a single map or article, the coverage isn't present in the Wikipedia article. Dave (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

In the article it sounds as if the (Midwestern-based?) Roosevelt Highway Association and the Massachusetts-based (?) Sons of the Union Veterans of the Civil War were somewhat in rivalry, with the SUVCV ultimately prevailing by 1948 in getting all the states along 6 adopt their preferred name for the transcontinental route. It looks like there might have been a period between December 1936 and Feb. 2, 1937 (when Ma. declared their portion the GAR highway) when the whole route was called the Roosevelt Highway but the text is not clear and the single relevant link is dead. Presumably by this point the Portland-to-Portland international route was no longer being called the Roosevelt Highway by 1936. In any case, if there was a period, however brief, when the whole of Route was officially the Roosevelt Highway (or Theodore Roosevelt Hwy., for example) this should be noted in the lede, with the relevant dates.68.178.50.46 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, there's a good link in the history section of the US 6 in California page that says 6 was declared a transcontinental highway on June 21, 1937, by which time it was already the Grand Army of the Republic Highway in Massachusetts. So it looks like it could never have been the Roosevelt Highway coast to coast. Probably good to note its maximum extent (in 1936?) or otherwise make some mention of it in the lede, along with the GAR designation. BTW 6 was not really a practical auto route for quite a while. The portion ine eastern Nevada was still an old rutted wagon track,perhaps following the old emigrant trails, in part.68.178.50.46 (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can conform the Laws, California museum (which is awesome BTW) has a 1920's era sign that was placed at the modern junction of US 6 and US 395 in Bishop, California. In the Dan O'Laurie Museum of Moab is an almost identical (in shape and font) sign that was placed at Crescent Junction, Utah at the junction of what is now I-70 and U.S. Route 191. Both signs state they are property of the Automobile Club of Southern California, and both use the term Midland Trail when referring to what is now US-6. So it appears that at a minimum the ACSC was in the Roosevelt camp for a time. However, both states today sign US 6 as the GAR highway with no mention of the Midland Trail or Roosevelt highway. Beyond that, I don't know.Dave (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did find this [1] which states that Utah adopted the GAR name for US 6 in 1949, and implies the campaign to name US 6 the GAR highway lasted until 1953 (but the sentence isn't clear). But those dates imply the name Midland Roosevelt highway was used first, and the GAR came later. Dave (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

• California State Route 11, California State Route 7, California State Route 168
• Nevada State Route 10, Nevada State Route 15, Nevada State Route 3, Nevada State Route 4, Nevada State Route 7, Nevada State Route 14
• Utah: unknown (US 50 east of Spanish Fork)
• U.S. Route 40S, State Highway 78, State Highway 91, State Highway 81
• U.S. Route 38, U.S. Route 32
• Illinois Route 7, apparently Illinois Route 53
• State Road 6 (may not have gone west from US 41)
• State Route 2, State Route 34, State Route 12, State Route 2, State Route 85, State Route 7, State Route 167
• Pennsylvania Route 77, Pennsylvania Route 79
• Pennsylvania Route 7
• unknown, New York State Route 37
• Route 119, Route 3, Route 130, Route 339, Route 350, Route 3, Route 109, Route 315, Route 3
• Route 3
• Route 3, unnumbered?, Route 6, Route 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs) 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

First, What constitutes a major junction? From the route box it appears only interstate highways, but list any other US highways that happen to be in the vicinity. Is this correct?

In either case, I sympathize with all who contributed on the junction box. There are so many multiplexes that trying to decide where US6 intersects US-50 (they touch 4 times, Ely, Delta, Green River, Grand Junction) or I-70 (they touch 7 times, Green River, Grand Junction, palasade, near Eisenhower Tunnel (twice), near Idaho Springs and Denver) is a mess. I would argue that the major intersection of US6 and I-70 is not Denver, but Green River. At Denver, US6 is mearly a local commuter traffic interchange. Most long distance drivers would be most concerned about the split at Green River. I changed the route box to reflect this. If I missed the point, sorry, please inform and correct. Also, shouldn't the US-95 junction at Tonopah, NV be included? I know this is not an interstate junction, but its the only junction for hundreds of miles and if you miss it, woe be unto you (and your gas tank). Davemeistermoab 02:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I brought this up on the U.S. Highway Project page and haven't got a response yet. I've been doing the junctions on the infoboxes. I'm using ArcGIS to find the junctions and then trying to label them as the nearest city. It becomes tricky as you say when a particular route intersects or multiplexes with another (or three) multiple times. My method has been to list junctions near major cities unless it's a junction with a major thoroughfare, such as an Interstate ending in a 0 or 5 (general rule) or one of the U.S. Routes ending in 0 or 1. As far as the junction with U.S. 95, the project mentions to keep the junction lists small, 10 or less, so some need to be cut out, in that case I try to adhere to the standard I mentioned. I also list junctions as you would encounter them driving west to east or south to north as that's the standard listing method of the U.S. Highways Project. Stratosphere 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

We should probably not include junctions with "parallel" routes such as I-70, I-76, I-80, I-84, US 50, etc. For these cross-country routes, one possible option would be to do what is done for similar cross-country Interstate Highways -- use only junction with Interstate highways ending in 5 for east/west routes. Polaron | Talk 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's pretty much the method I've been following so far. Stratosphere 03:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

In this case I looked at a map and chose a number of roughly evenly-spaced large cities, and added I-15 to even it out. --SPUI (T - C) 10:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

IMO this article needs some help. Here are some proposals:

• Move all of the new york section to a sub page and link (similar to the Penn. section)
• Merge the "miscelenia" and Mass. sections. Everything in Miscelenia is mass. related anyways.
• Delete the entire Releted Routes section. IMO this adds no value. Most of this section is listing interstates that have largely replaced US 6 but are not numerically related to US 6. In addition if this section were to list EVERY instance where US 6 is supplanded or spured from an interstate the list would be HUGE, there are 20+ such instances in Colorado alone (in the western US, this is a common practice). So IMO this section is both incomplete and not adding value
• Similarly purge most of the content in the Oddities section or move to the states section, clean up what's left. This section contains a lot of irrelevent points (IMO). For example, hundreds of US routes lack an End marker at a terminus. Not newsworthy. Route violations abound, not newsworthy. It is mentioned that the eatern terminal of US 6 is not its most eastern point and its western terminous is not its most western point in 2 scattered bullet points. Should be combined into 1.
• Major Intersections is redundant with the route box

Any objections to what I propose? If nobody objects I'll start to work on it in my spare time

Davemeistermoab 07:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Most of what you said parallels the current guidelines at WP:USH, so I have no objections. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

O.K. I did round 1. One thing that amazed me is how much redundant content there was. Almost like people added content not knowing it was already present in another section. I tried to combine all redundant content and place it in the "best" spot. Davemeistermoab 05:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The following text was recently added to the California section. I'm not sure of the authors intent, nor am I even sure what this says. Anybody have any ides? Does this belong in the article? Aside from the mention of California State Route 11 this text adds nothing new from what I can tell.

The US 6 was mainly once used in sections of Harbor and Pasadena Freeways, including Arroyo Parkway from 1940s to 1964 then it was decommissioned to State Route 11 (to avoid conflicts with other segments) and became California State Route 110 and Interstate 110 in 1981.

Here's my best guess at cleaning this up Davemeistermoab 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Obviously the detailed history should go in the state articles. Here are some general notes. --NE2 00:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Midland Trail, Los Angeles, CA to Ely, NV
• Pikes Peak Ocean to Ocean Highway, Price, UT to Red Cliff, CO
• Detroit-Lincoln-Denver Highway, Denver, CO to Joliet, IL (DLD went via the Lincoln Highway to South Bend, and then northeast to Paw Paw and east to Detroit)
• Toledo-Chicago Pike, Ligonier, IN to Bryan, OH
• Shore Road, Fremont, OH to Cleveland, OH
• Yellowstone Trail, Sandusky, OH to Cleveland, OH
• Roosevelt Highway, Erie, PA (via later US 6N) to Port Jervis, NY
• Bridge Route, Monroe, NY? to Brewster, NY?

State highway numbers

• CA: no signed routes
• NV: 3, 4, 14
• UT: see Talk:U.S. Route 50
• CO: 4, 78, 91, 2 (roughly, including US 38 from Greeley), 14
• NE: 7
• IA: 2, 7
• IL: 7, 18 (US 32 to Chicago), no number east of Joliet
• IN: no number west of Ligonier, 17
• OH: 2, 34, 12, 85
• PA: no number for new alignment, 7 (including later US 6N)
• NY: no number west of Middletown, 17, 37; 50 (later US 6N)
• CT: 119, 3, 130, 350, 113, 3, 109, 315, 3
• RI: 3
• MA: 3, 6, 28?, 3

• In Bishop, California, the western terminus of U.S. Route 6, the mileage to its eastern terminus in Provincetown, Massachusetts is given as 3,205 miles.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 23:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been thinking that this article needs some pictures for quite some time. Ironically, somebody just posted one. How many is too many? On the article for Loveland Pass, U.S. Route 50 in Utah, and Glenwood Canyon have pictures that could be used. How many is too many? I look at Interstate 70 and think that is overkill. Would adding those 2 be appropriate? Davemeistermoab 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the pics on I-70 are overkill, honestly. The image layout, however, was poor, as all the pics were stacked to the right. I fixed it so that the pics alternate as they go down the page. Regarding this page...I'm not sure if they should be used (since I don't see the connection between them and US 6 at first glance), but maybe I'm missing something. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Glenwood Canyon and Loveland Pass Carry US 6 over and through the Rocky Mountains. US 6 is clearly visible in one of the pictures for Loveland Pass. And a significant portion of US 6 is multiplexed with US 50 in Utah. That's the connection. 17.255.242.234 03:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you think the pictures will help the article, then by all means add them. If they're appropriate, they won't be removed in all likelihood. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll go through my photo album first. I prefer original pictures to "me too" photos. But if I can't find anything, I'll link to those photos. On my last trip to Utah, I tried to take pictures of Soldier Summit, Utah (also along US 6) but none I thought good enough for wikipedia. Got an good one of fall colors and a train going up the Gilluly Loops (swichbacks on the tracks leading up to soldier summit) but it was from far enough away I'd have to draw arrows on the picture =-) Davemeistermoab 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can always place them in commons:Category:U.S. Route 6 and add commons=category to the infobox. --NE2 21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

US 6 is currently closed in Iowa at the Cedar River. The June 2008 floods destroyed the roadbed along the eastern approach, although the bridge is fine. I took pictures of the damage on July 6, 2008. Work had not begun on repair at that time. While a temporary closure probably does not belong in the article this one might be a while. Iowa DOT has no info on this other then it will be closed for some time. Should it be included with a picture or two? Skywayman (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

According to the Route 6 Tour Association, apparently the California portion of the route has been renumbered to restore the route designation all the way to Long Beach, CA. Here is a description of the change: [3] The article and the map should be updated to reflect this. L. Greg (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is a ceremonial designation, not an official designation. Officially the highway still ends at Bishop. This is much like the renaissance of "Historic US 66" signs across the southwest USA. Offically the highway is deceased, but you'd never know it driving down main street of Kingman, AZ, or Flagstaff, or Albuquerque, etc. Dave (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article claims that the highway enters Davenport and becomes Kimberly Rd, but I think this was only correct before the re-routing after Wilton onto I-80. (I can't recall but think it used to pass through Durant and know it was what is now IA Hwy 900-something from Durant to Davenport.) Now it's just I-80 and I-74 until it becomes its own thing again in Illinois. Or so I think...someone who knows more than me might want to update the article. (Google Maps seems to agree with me, though.) RMo (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Prior to it being rerouted onto I-80 and I-280, US 6 did run from Wilton to Davenport on what, prior to 2003, was Iowa 927. The point where US 6 leaves I-280 and goes east (Kimberly Road) has been US 6 for a long time, possibly since 1926. I do agree that it needs a re-write. It's on my to-do list to fix, but I might just move it up a bit higher and get it done. —Fredddie™ 22:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Both the leads for U.S. Route 6 and U.S. Route 20 make the claim that US Route 20 is the longest route, but due to a gap through Yellowstone National Park, US 6 is the longest continuous route. As was pointed out by an IP edit to the US 6 article, this may not be true. It all depends on what one defines as a "Gap". Almost the entire route of US 6 through eastern Utah and most of Colorado is concurrent with I-70 and very little of it is signed. The few portions that are signed in Colorado, the US 6 designation is the "old route" and is acting as a de-facto designation for "I-70 Business Loop" or "I-70 Alternate". As such I'm not sure why the unsigned gap in Yellowstone counts as a break in the route, but the numerous gaps in the above mentioned two states don't. Am I missing something? Or should the mention of US 6 as the longest continuous route be removed? Dave (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is a shield gap, but not a route gap through Yellowstone. We have similar with US 441 in the Great Smoky Mountains; it's still the route, just not signed to limit commercial traffic (Reference). As such, US 6's claim as the longest should be removed. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Except it is a route gap through Yellowstone. This from the actual AASHTO log, note the differences. –Fredddie™ 21:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Number  State     Type    Intersection               MP  Accum.  Remarks
20	Wyoming	  Regular Yellowstone National Park  52	 435	 East Section ends, East Entrance; U.S. 14 and U.S. 16 end
20	Montana	  Regular Yellowstone National Park  0	 0	 West Section begins, West Entrance; joins U.S. 287 and U.S. 191
6	Colorado  Regular W. of Wolcott	             2	 312	 Crosses I-70
6	Colorado  Regular Jct. N.W. of Gypsum	     21	 333	 Joins I-70
6	Colorado  Regular Jct. W. of Dotsero	     10	 343	 Leaves I-70

US 20 officially has a gap through Yellowstone while US 6 is officially designated along its concurrency with I-70 despite little to no signage. Therefore the claim that US 6 is the longest continuous route is still valid as the log officially has a continous route from Bishop to Provincetown. Dough4872 22:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

AASHTO just recently created a gap in US 6 in Rifle, CO. --NE2 23:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This was the IP's point as well. My question is did they really create a gap? Or did they just eliminate it as a unique route through Rifle, and nmove US-6 to yet more unsigned concurrent miles with I-70? The source isn't clear on that and appears to have some sloppy paperwork that doesn't help (On the AASHTO form that includes the selection box that would settle this question, the highway in question suddenly becomes US-160 through the town of Bayfield, in an apparent form swap error.) However the source does mention that the segment in question connects to I-70 at both ends implying they did not truly create a gap. Dave (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's clearly a gap on page 15: "Jct E of Rifle 18 383 Ends at Rifle City Limits" --NE2 15:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

So both routes are in a similar situation. Both have technical gaps with an obvious but unofficial connection. The main difference is one is literally a technicality, about 3 miles and too small to see on all but the most detailed of maps, while the other has a gap that is big enough to see on a national map. So that means the leads are not correct. They could be fixed, or this (IMO) trivial detail could just be deleted. Dave (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

PS: AASHTO did remove GSMNP from US 441 in 1970; I don't know why it's not in the log. --NE2 23:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Click on my reference to the request form, it shows that they simply removed the signage, not the route. My assumption was they did similar in Yellowstone because the log said they did. --WashuOtaku (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Except that Yellowstone never had any routes in the first place. The 1926 map and 1927 log both show gaps. --NE2 15:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U.S. Route 6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120215075904/http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/timesindep1,21182 to http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/timesindep1,21182

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have seen several claims of where the original western terminus of US6 in Long Beach was:

1. Intersection of Pacific Coast Highway (SR1) and Atlantic Avenue (former SR15). 2. Traffic Circle (SR1) (SR19) 3. South end of Long Beach Blvd.

Is there any hard evidence of where US 6 actually ended in Long Beach? Mcsew2k (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

All are likely true at one time or another. We think of the US highway system as a stable system, and it is today. However, it was not always this stable. Nowadays the mindset is mark the US Highway as the best route between point A and point B, and it stays that way until a new freeway (or whatever) is built that is now the better route. However, in years past (1960s and prior) it was not uncommon to route US Highways on very roundabout routings, and move them around, for reasons as silly as justification to keep a given road in the state maintained system. You might ping User:Imzadi1979. He recently obtained the official AASHTO logs for this era, and has been gradually scanning them, and uploading to Wikisource. The goal is once that is done we can have better sourced history sections that rely more on the AASHTO logs and less on maps. However, as these are old paper logs, this will take some time. In fact he frequently asks for help in proof reading the logs he scans, so you might volunteer to help him proofread, in exchange for being among the first of Wikipedians to find the answer to your question. Dave (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The decisions are all logged at WP:USRD/AASHTO, and many of the source documents have been transcribed to Wikisource. All of them are on Wikimedia Commons though. Imzadi 1979 → 03:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Imzadi, So here's what I found with a quick scan of those PDF's. At the 1937 AASHTO meeting page 2 the terminus of US 6 is mentioned as using the route of state route 165 to SR 60, and co-incident with US 101 Alternate, to Long Beach. The only other mention of a relocation in California, prior to the decimation in 1964, is the 1960 meeting, page 1 which mentions a relocation to use freeways through the LA area, instead of surface streets, with no mention of a change in terminus. SoMcewe2k, if you can find a reliable source for the routing of CA 165 CA Route 60 in 1937, it appears we can add this to the Wikipedia article. Per Cahighways.org (which I don't know if we can use as a source or not, so may have to find another source for old CA legislative designations) CA 165 was routed along Figuroa st. (makes sense, right next to modern I-110) while CA 60 is modern CA 1 through the area. So that tells us how US 6 entered Long Beach, but not exactly where its terminus was. Dave (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I just read in one of the references (7) Weingroff, Richard F. "U.S. 6: The Grand Army of the Republic Highway". Highway History. Federal Highway Administration, the following:

"On June 21, 1937, U.S. 6 became a transcontinental highway. Officials of AASHO extended U.S. 6 to Long Beach, California, 3,652 miles from Provincetown on Cape Cod in Massachusetts. The eastern terminus was at New Beach Circle; the western terminus at the intersection of the Long Beach Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway (U.S. 101)."

The article is written chronologically and there is no way that the Long Beach Freeway existed in 1937. The LB Frwy did essentially replaced Atlantic Ave south of Alondra Blvd, so perhaps he meant to say Atlantic Ave. Mcsew2k (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have seen several Grand Army of the Republic Highway (GAR) road signs in California along highways that are no longer part of US6. I am curious about the wording of the official documents that designated that name for that highway. Does the naming of the highway relate to US6 in such a way that the GAR name is also shortened to Bishop, CA when US6 was shortened? Mcsew2k (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Utah article (U.S. Route 6 in Utah) touches upon this in the lead. The source used in the lead has a bit more information. Long story short, it was the states that coordinated the nation wide naming of US 6 as the GAR highway. I.E. the federal government didn't drive this. It was driven from the bottom up, not the top down. To answer your question, you'd need to know if the California state legislature modified the bill designating GAR highway in 1963-4 when they also passed a bill truncating US6. I don't know the answer to that, but based on field signage, it appears the answer is no. The replacement designations for the US 6 corridor (California State Route 14 in particular) seem to have inherited the GAR designation. As you say there are signs along SR 14 stating "GAR Highway". The Wikipedia articles are deliberately silent on this subject, and will likely remain so unless and until someone finds something definitive.Dave (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I talked about it a little bit on U.S. Route 6 in Iowa as well. It was designated to the route that was in place at the time and seems to have stuck there even with a significant portion rerouted onto I-80. We even went as far as naming bridges after Civil War generals. The one closest to me is named after Marcellus Crocker. –Fredddie™ 23:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

So I tried to add the fact that US Route 6 has the greatest elevation change of any road in the US as it crosses the Loveland Pass in Colorado at 11,991 and has its eastern terminus at sea level in Provincetown, MA., but it was deleted. It is an accurate statement and, in my opinion, is of significance. Mschiavi (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's unpack the edit summary on the edit that reverted yours, @Mschiavi. I happen to agree with it.

1. The content you added has no source. Now, that's not an issue for content added to the lead of an article, but only if that content is repeated in the body of the article with a source. (The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so nothing should appear there that isn't repeated in some fashion in the body of the article.) It's not repeated, so this content is completely unsourced. At a minimum, a source is needed for the claim in the lead, but ideally, that claim should be repeated in the body of the article with a source there.
   The content is an extraordinary claim. When we have claims like that (highest, longest, etc.), we have to have a source specifically on point to it. Your edit did not, so it needs to go.
2. As for the rest of the edit summary, it mentions using postal abbreviations. Specifically, your edit abbreviated two state names in running prose down to their USPS abbreviations. This isn't something we do. That's more of a stylistic concern, but still important to fix if this claim is ever returned with a proper source.
3. One thing not mentioned in the edit summary that's also an issue is that the elevation was given without a metric conversion. This could be done simply by using {{convert}} if the claim is restored to the article.

As I noted above, I agree with removing the edit. That doesn't mean we can't have the claim in the article, we just need a source that specifically states this fact, and we'd need to clean up the formatting of how we present it. Imzadi 1979 → 04:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would support the restoration of this claim, provided a source is found. The problem with claims like this is they tend to be debatable depending on how many qualifiers are added, and criteria. Another problem with claims like this is they tend to result in readers using this information to compile and promote their own lists which may be inaccurate from "apples to oranges" comparisons. Having a good source gives us something to fall back on should these problems result. An example of where this did result is while typing this reply I noticed the leads for the articles U.S. Route 34 and Trail Ridge Road made similar claims that contradicted each other. I just tweaked the lead for US 34 as that one was clearly not correct, and likely added by a user that had good intentions but relied on a user-made list that had errors or omissions. Dave (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply