Commons talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

Shortcut: CT:USRD

Centralized discussion for WikiProject U.S. Roads

All USRD talk subpages redirect here (or will) for the greatest visibility
For all other comments or concerns, please post below.

Archives: Index, 1

Project goals[edit]

I wanted to write down some goals I had for USRD on Commons.

~~Move the Maps and Shields task forces here to Commons from ENWP.~~
1. I don't have a timetable for when I'd like to do this, or even if there is consensus to do this here or on ENWP.
2. I'm not sure if there we'd be able to do a fancy wiki-merge or if we should start from scratch.
Reach out to the other wikis. Some may be great at KML and not even know that we can do it.
TRANSLATION. We'll definitely have to reach out to the other wikis for that if we haven't already.

I'll add more as I think of them, but these are the main goals I have for COM:USRD now. –Fredddie ™ 04:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as #3, we probably need to get a translation admin to set up the software, if that's what we want to use (see example pages on Meta like m:Stewards). --Rs chen 7754 08:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State highway markers and licensing[edit]

It's generally assumed that all of the states' highway marker designs are in the public domain. However, the license tags are actually mostly incorrect in how these are tagged. In most cases, the Wikimedian that recreated the marker in digital form has "released" the file into the public domain, but that's not strictly correct because that person didn't have an ownership stake in the design to release it; the appropriate state would have the original ownership. Please help the project to research each state's specific status so we can update the licensing at COM:USRD/L. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate highway shields are trademarked by the FHWA, so when we correct the licenses, we need to add {{Trademarked}} after the license. –Fredddie ™ 17:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another consideration related to this endeavor is that individual Wikimedians should not be credited as the creators of our marker graphics. They may be the ones that produce a digital copy of that marker/shield for reuse on the various Wikimedia sites, but they did not create the original design. Methodically replacing the number from the example in the government document with the required number for a specific use does not confer any originality to the new creation.

As file description pages are updated in the future based on the research at COM:USRD/L, we should be thinking about properly crediting FHWA, AASHTO or the appropriate state DOT for the designs, and not a Wikimedian, We may want to supply some form of credit for template creation, but we must credit the proper agency for the base design. We should also try to uniformly implement {{Information}}. Imzadi 1979 → 19:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the design is simple (e.g. , , , ) it should be {{PD-shape}}. This supersedes others templates as the respective agency could not get copyright if they wanted to. As for attribution, I agree it should be the agency however that does not mean the author and/or template author cannot be credited. e.g. Design: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Template: Northenglish, Fredddie, Uploader: Svgalbertian.--Svgalbertian (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would rather use the most specific license. If the state's MUTCD explicitly says the sign is PD, that can't be challenged. If a state DOT gives us a blanket release of all of their highway systems in an email that can be logged with OTRS, that also can't be challenged. (Both apply to Michigan, by the way.) Thresholds of originality, notions of simplicity and such are subject to interpretation and challenge. The last thing we need is to be relying on PD-shape and have that challenged at a FAC or FLC or some sort of deletion nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can say with 100% confidence that the examples I gave are below the threshold of originality. If File:Best Western logo.svg is below the threshold of originality so are these. If something is not eligible for copyright, then it doesn't matter is someone gave up their rights. Looking into it more I really question the use of {{PD-USGov-MUTCD}} for route markers. The MUTCD does not define these route markers. The MUTCD is not law, and cannot nullify the potential copyright of others. The MUTCD is just saying it releases what it defines here. For the Interstate and others you really should reference the Standard Highway Signs and Markings. That document is {{PD-USGov-DOT}}. This is tricky area for sure. At least for the ones that are too simple I think I am the one who is erriing on the side of caution.--Svgalbertian (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's say I write a book, and there's a photo in it that you'd like to use. Let's say that instead of the standard "©2014 All Rights Reserved" statement on the backside of the title page, it said "This book and its contents are dedicated into the public domain. Attribution is requested." You are now free to reuse that photo in your project, and you should provide attribution to myself and my book as the source. The copy of the photo in the book doesn't define the image's technical specifications, a job left to the negative or the digital file from my camera, but you're still free to scan that photo for reuse.
      That is what the federal MUTCD has done for traffic control devices like the circle marker or the stop sign. There is an exception in there because AASHTO holds a trademark on the Interstate Highway shield, but otherwise the other traffic control devices can't be trademarked.
      Now, for state-specific markers. you're right, the federal MUTCD "cannont nullify the potential copyright of others". Michigan's marker isn't the circle; it's a diamond. That marker is shown in the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. On page I-1 of the MMUTCD there is the same copyright provision, which means the Michigan Department of Transportation and Michigan State Police, as authors of the MMUTCD (along with FHWA), have explicitly released their traffic control devices into the PD. That's why we have {{PD-MUTCD-MI}} on those markers, not {{PD-MUTCD}}. As for the Michigan Heritage Route markers, which should exceed the ToO, those had their copyright "nullified" by an explicit statement of an authorized employee of MDOT in an e-mail that has been logged in OTRS.
      As a matter of federal regulations though, the FHWA requires each state to adopt a manual that complies with the federal MUTCD. Some states have their own MUTCD, like Michigan does, that is a single manual with all of the federal and state provisions, others have supplemental manuals that are paired with the federal manual, and some others have specifically adopted only the federal manual without supplement or amendment. Imzadi 1979 → 00:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]