Talk:International E-road network

Unique use of E-road name in Belgium

It is untrue that Belgian E-roads do not have a national designation. They do, but virtually no one uses it. Thus, while the E411 is also the A4 in Belgium, virtually everyone calls it the E411. I have changed the article to reflect this. --Deregnaucourt 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not compass directions

Is there any reason why the numbers are not accompanied by a compass direction (North, West, ..), the same way as in U.S.? I saw few times in Scandinavia, but not in the rest of Europe. It makes orientation much much easier, especially at complex junctions. Is it just a problem of choosing a common language? Or it was it never intended that way, but why then is the numbering organized by compass direction?

This is true, European roads are not usually referred to as going "north" or "south", but rather to "Paris" or "Bruxelles". Both systems have their advantages: while a road designated "north" would make it easier to head in that general direction, a road labelled "Bruxelles" would be sure to take you to a specific place. However, you'd have to know where "Bruxelles" is in reference to where you want to be. Having done long drives in N. America and Europe, I think the European system has the clear advantage of providing known waypoints for navigtion. A route such as Bruxelles-Köln-Frankfurt-Nürmberg-Passau-Linz-Wien is much easier to visualise and follow than E40 east to E314 east to German A4 south to German A5 south, etc. --Deregnaucourt 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually have just the opposite experience (easy to drive in U.S. following compass directions, hard in Europe, especially on complex junctions, and in places where all town names seem the same to me; also which name should I look for on round-about signs - the town 10km from here, 50km, 100km, 200km), but personal experiences are not important for encyclopedia article. The design of the system suggests that the authors had compass directions in mind. And I would like the article say if that's true (and then why it was not implemented), or not (and then why is it organized by N-S, E-W). --Jirka6 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Would be good info for the article, but as with everything in Wikipedia it should be referenced. Maybe just my imagination but I find that "roadgeek"-oriented articles often tend to rely on personal observation. But by no means are all of them underreferenced! - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Iceland

A pity that the powers that be haven't included Iceland in the uber Autobahn system, even though Anatolia, Kazakhstan and Syria get a look in.

How are you supposed to do that, given its isolation from the mainland?

Presumably in much the same way as they've done for Britain and Ireland. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Differing number systems

How should one treat the cases of E47 (which is within Scandinavia, at least Sweden and Norway, called and signed E6) and E55 (which is within Scandinavia, at least Sweden, called and signed E4)? As of now, they are listed here as E04 and E06, which is not a good solution. Also, E4 has its own page, under that name.

I see that I missed on signing the message. But it was mine! =) The reason for listing the roads as E04 and E06 being a bad idea is of course that they are anything but west-to-east. --Jao 02:53, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Like you, I too was dumbfounded when noticing this fact, as I'm used to travelling the E6 from north to south and vice versa... Likewise the E4 up and down Sweden. --Wernher 14:49, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is an edit war between me and a not logged-in person (latest IP 81.104.170.167) regarding this issue. The reason for having articles E4 ad E6 is that the official document [[1]] define these two roads as full E-roads, not as any special numbering of any other E-road. They are violating the east-west principle, but nevertheless they are called E04 and E06. BIL 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that source, I now stand corrected, and of course I will gladly assist your efforts to keep the article correct, if this edit war will keep going on. -- Jao 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

List notation

I would like to propose a 'standard' for listing the roads, based on the current de facto scheme. It should be noted in the text.

• a hyphen '-' between towns; several hyphens where towns are omitted
• an ellipsis '...' denoting connections by sea

No revolution, just putting the de facto std in writing. --Wernher 14:49, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Might it not be helpful to note the design and such of the roads? --Penta 18:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Signage

It would be nice to have information about signage in each country. Here's all I know:

• UK - not signed at all
• Germany - signed on newer signs and at major junctions and reassurance signs

--SPUI (talk) 04:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) The truth is, that the overall signage in Germany is poor. Among German motorists, there is virtually any kind of awareness about E-roads, they simply follow the German national numbering schemes. E-road numbers are only included in the motorway reassurance signs. The few E-road sections on Bundesstraßen (Federal highways apart from motorways) often provide a better E-road signage than on the motorway system. Example: E233 near the Dutch border. However, at least some major interchanges in Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony), Saarland and Berlin do cover E numbering. But these rare examples are not specifically on newer signs - especially in Berlin these signs are often very old. Ironically, the E signage in the former GDR was far better than in West Germany. After the 1990 reunification, this has been changed to West German standard, because the GDR motorway system was included into the German motorway numbering system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.225.112.236 (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention?

The official name of the system is the "international E-road network", which is why I moved the article here. "European route" does not seem to be in common use. That of course brings us to the question of what to title the articles about the roads. Maybe E-road E08, E08 (E-road) or E08 (road)? --SPUI (talk) 05:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the point/effect?

Are the roads just lines on a map, or something more? Do national governments get funding for them from the EU or the UN? What effect do they have on me in the UK, where we don't even seem to sign any of them? The article doesn't mention any of these kind of questions. Maccoinnich 12:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the UK does get funding for them from the EU. The EU has grandiose plans for networking the whole of Europe, and is putting lots of money into it (more into those nations with fewer roads than us). You sometimes see the EU logo on signs advertising new road projects, but they take the signs down when the roads are finished. I'll see if I can dig up some references. --Heron 20:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of reference to US highways/interstates

I removed the reference to the US Highway/Interstate system, since I don't see any connection that has to E-roads. E-roads are an international, transcontinental system; thus, they are most similar to the Pan-American Highway or to the Asian Highway Network. There is of course some vague similarities between international and national highway systems (heck, they are both highway systems). But then, if we are to compare international and national highway systems, why should we compare it against just the US one? The US is but one country of many, a particularly important one in many fields, but in the field of highway systems? I doubt so. -- Samuel Katinsky

Images

I would suggest that a high resolution map of the complete E-road Network be placed in this article. It should include all A class roads at least, and even B class if the scale permits. It should include information about which parts of a route are up to motorway standards, which are not, which are planned to be upgraded to motorway etc... Also, even though there are images of some of the roads on articles about the country they belong to, it could be useful to link them here, or even add more. Jimzoun 12:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is something wrong with the map of the German system. It's fine if one follows the link, but in the article on my browser, it appears as a thick vertical gray line on a white background. vLaDsINgEr 01:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, cut that. It works fine now that I changed the thumb size to 275px. How odd. vLaDsINgEr 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The map is missing national boundaries of post-Soviet Union states

Correct. It's a 1990-1991 map (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, USSR still exist; Germany reunited). Someone with more Photoshop ability than I shoudl update it or create a new one. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for inclusion of two images of Georgia's network where many countries aren't even displayed? The fist image displaying Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia seems adequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.58.132.156 (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates

The list should be updated with the recent changes documented in the minutes for the 2004 meeting: [2] --ZorroIII 08:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ireland

I'm about to edit the reference to signage practice in the British Isles. Two reasons:

1. The reference to roads not crossing borders with differing numbers on either side is false. Two states and a land border means that that does indeed happen.

2. E-road signage has begun to sneak onto signs in the Republic of Ireland.

3. (I lied about the number). Irish people tend not to like the term "British Isles", mostly because of the way it encourages people to assume it refers to a single country with uniform characteristics (as appears to have happened in the old text).

Mackerski 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I get the slight feeling that Wexford County Council did a solo run on putting "E-01" on route confirmation signs on the Gorey Bypass. The N1 Dundalk-Newry dual carriageway, which opened today, does not have similar signs (and in fact, this would be the one strech of road you would expect them to use the E number!). Secondly, the E-01 markers are not in the standard format and are rather small (I believe they should read "E1" now, rather than E-01.

Until they publish the very long awaited new TSM, we won't know for sure, of course....

--Rdd 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

E-201

E-201 has now been signposted. The E-201 is the N8. It is signed on Route Confirmation Signs South of Cashel, and they are bigger than what was put on the Gorey Bypass. I think the article should be changed to reflect this, also to keep a refernce to the new TSM, if it ever comes out. Limbo-Messiah (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Spaces

In the official document pdf, about 130 kB (any other reliable sources?) the naming is always with a space between letter and number - any reason why we don't have this space here? It's not regulated in the source to have a space (or dashes etc.) on the sign, so it may often be omitted resulting in smaller and cheaper signs - but I don't see a reason to omit the spaces here. Greetings -- 79.219.60.232 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that, it would make sense to have consistent information sources. According to the official UNECE document I will start to adjust the naming of the E-roads. --HeikoEc (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The signs in the article do not show a space, nor does the navbox at the bottom, nor are the individual road articles named so. I wanted to add anchors to the article for roads that don't have their own article (to facilitate easy location/wikilinking from other articles), but don't know whether to include a space or not. It would also be nice to have (perhaps hidden) text with the road number at each entry to allow searching for it in the browser (i.e. the signs are nice, but aren't searchable). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

E Road distances

Does anyone know of any wiki-preferred provenance for E road distances appearing in wiki entries on E roads? Background:

I have been translating an entry on the E62 from Italian. Our Italian friends have a total distance for the E 62 of 1290 km from somewhere (source not to me obvious) so I copied it to the intro para.

But now I am trying to compute the distance leg by leg using both (1) distances on road atlases (Ravenstein. Michelin, TCI) and (2) Microsoft Autoroute 2006 'route finder' software (applying cumulative minus previous cumulative to avoid excessive impact from roundings).

I've not finished, but I think I am finding the measured distances longer than the 1290 km by maybe 5%.

Considerations:

For much of its length A 62 runs NOT on autoroutes - for which well established verifyable distances exist.

It runs through three different countries, each of which may apply different base assumptions concerning distances.

Distances change over time. Little by little, bits of this road get converted or supplemented into / by autoroute. Even where that does not happen, by pass roads that avoid the town centre have been a priority with French road builders in the last decade or so. Maps and software put the E 62 tag on the by pass routes rather than through the city centre which reduces the journey time (presumably...) but also increases the journey length quite significantly. ....to the extent that if I were simply measuring distances from urban centre to urban centre, I'd most likely end up pretty close to the 1290 km length from the Italian wiki entry on E62.

I guess this raises quite complex interlocking questions about the 'wiki-nature' of 'wiki-truth' as it impacts route distances. I wonder if anyone else has been through these thought processes and formed any conclusions - consensus even? The wiki project highways group seems to be chiefly interested in stateside routes which is fine and dandy, but in Europe the distances issue seems to be rather different in a way that folks who seldom travel outside The Union probably would mostly find pretty hard to conceptualise. Maybe that should be conceptualize.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

European map

I suggest removing this map from the article, since it is 20 years incorrect. it is showing the borders of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, instead of independent states. H2ppyme (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The entry clearly needs a map, but if you can substitute a more up to date map, please do it. Otherwise there must be a way, using GIMP or some similar program, to superimpose the network shown here on a map that incorporates current (or at least more recent) national borders.

There might even be a need to update the image of network itself: I don't know enough about recent developments with the E roads to judge that. Unfortunately I'm not fluent in GIMP. But ... someone must be. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

E02

I am not certain of this, but I think that the E02 described here is an international long distance walking path, not a road route. I have a German road atlas which shows E routes in ins summary of Europe. It shows E01, E16, E18, E20, E30, E201 in Ireland, but nothing going to Galway and no E02. If I am right, the the European route E02 article is also completely wrong. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Further comment http://roads.goodnight.to/ appears to be a useful resource, it doesn't list E02. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This file: http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2008/sc1/ECE-TRANS-SC1-384e.pdf is the original list by the decisive authority, and it does not contain any E02. Unless it has appeared just recently. But I don't beleive that. The content in European route E02 was added by one user only, and the content in International E-road network by one ip number. --BIL (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Zero prefixes

I'm curious as to why these have gone, since according to the UNECE standard, and seemingly most of the signage in those places that do it, the prefixes should be there. Exceptions for E4 and E6 are justified, since strictly speaking those two are from the former system (based on traffic volumes rather than on a grid - I have a book somewhere which lists at least E1-E25 from that scheme), with grid positions E04 and E06 not used, but the others should certainly be zero-prefixed - even the new signage in Ireland uses them. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

European route E1 → European route E01 — Extending this discussion because of new evidence turning up. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose that the zeroes be reinstated on the odd-numbered roads. The UNECE source document unequivocally uses the leading zeroes on these roads. I have not proposed the even-numbered roads for historical reasons. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• European route E3 → European route E03
• European route E5 → European route E05
• European route E7 → European route E07
• European route E9 → European route E09

The even numbers aren't listed because:

1. E4 and E6 are throwbacks to the 1975 system, which did not use leading zeroes. Therefore, dropping the zero is probably justified for these two.
2. I'm unsure of the history of E8/E08. The route in Norway and Sweden is north of E10, however the route in Finland is decidedly north-south. Whether or not this is included in the request depends on whether or not it was defined entirely in 1992 or has sections dating back to the 1975 scheme.

Throw in the lack of an E02, and there's no even numbers to move yet. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. They are called E03 and E05 etc in the official documents. And they are signposted E03, E05, E09 along the roads. I know that the E08 is signposted E8 (like in this photo ), even though the number is not taken from the older system. This is a principle used in Finland and Norway, which comes from the E4 and E6. The north-south direction comes from an extension in year 2002. What to call it I am not sure of. --BIL (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, in Spain they seem to be sign posted without zeroes. Photos and .
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. For Wikipedia naming conventions, the UNECE is irrelevant if no else uses the terms formatted as such. Aubergine (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • . Define "no else uses the terms formatted as such". They are certainly signposted with leading zeroes. We've got photos on Commons of signs in Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal showing them. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please post or link to photos showing usage or cite maps or atlases. All commons photos seem to lack the leading zeroes unless I'm looking in the wrong place. — AjaxSmack 02:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is an example from France. This is definitely how the Irish have rendered it. Google Maps renders them with the leading zeros (if your screen is large enough, you should see all of E03, E05, E07 and E09). Somewhere, I have printed maps that use the leading zero exclusively. Also, bear in mind that with the expansion of the network eastwards, there are now single-digit roads with two leading zeroes. It would seem that some of the Spanish regions have opted to sign their routes inaccurately. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Call me old-fashioned and I certainly assume good faith but I would prefer actual photographic evidence to Wikipedia generated graphics. I have photos and maps to the contrary but have not visited the routes in question or bought relevant maps recently. — AjaxSmack 00:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If you want photos from Ireland, feel free to go take them. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Does that mean you have no other evidence to support your request? — AjaxSmack 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Do you have any evidence to the contrary from outside Spain? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't but I'm not proposing an article move. See also below. — AjaxSmack 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The N11 road (Ireland) is definitely signed as E01 (on a green background even on motorway sections). I'll search my files for a photo; until recently E-routes were not signposted in Ireland; but the road from Dundalk to Rosslare is called the E01, not E1, wherever a sign appears. Sarah777 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please, if you find any photographic or similar evidence, post it. Commons only has pictures without the "0". — AjaxSmack 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • 
      • I note that all of these examples are from Spain, which is the exception.

E-01 in Ireland

Humongously magnified version

Wow! 3-1 in favour and closed as "no consensus" after 20 hours!Sarah777 (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I had to search the crypt for this. It is on the N11 route in County Wexford; E-01. (Wexford County Council adopts a zero-tolerance approach to poor eyesight). Sarah777 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In light of this new evidence, I'm WP:BOLDly reopening this one. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Touch of the St Thomas about you folk! Sarah777 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Thank you, User:Sarah777, for your work. — AjaxSmack 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure - I'll try to be quicker next time :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We have Spain which uses one digit and Ireland which has the leading zero. Do we have examples from other countries? —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also France with leading zero, see above (File:Autoroute A10.jpg). The UK does not sign them at all, so the only remaining country is Portugal. Any Portuguese road sign photographers around? —JAO • T • C 18:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The official designation has a leading zero. The implication of WP:COMMONNAME would be that the burden is on the unofficial form to demonstrate widespread use. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Rome wikilinks?

Is there any reason why Rome isn't wikilinked in those long lists of cities? I can't imagine why not (given that Rome isn't a dab page or a redirect to the Vatican or something -- it's an article on the Italian capital). But the omission is so unmistakable that I figured I'd suppress my boldness and ask first. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Done (also Berlin) Martinvl (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)