Talk:Ohio Turnpike/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think this article should be in this category. The road is part of the Interstate Highway system end-to-end, and there is no category inheritance that would make it actually redundant (as if it were in the non-existant categories "Interstate 80" or "Interstate 90".) Error should be on the side of belonging to too many categories. I'm reinstating the category pending discussion. --CComMack 06:01, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Should all bridges on the Interstate system be in the Interstate categories? --SPUI (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

A bridge is not an "interstate highway" because it is not a "highway" (usually; watch someone now throw a causeway I've never heard of at me.  ;-) ) As the category is "Interstate highways in Ohio", and the Ohio Turnpike is unquestionably a highway, in Ohio, and part of the IHS, it seems to meet the prima facie case for inclusion in a way that does not create a slippery slope. --CComMack 12:46, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

As a rule, the bridge would not exist without the roadbed upon it.

A bridge, causeway, or viaduct is not a highway; a road upon it is. That should be a simple-enough distinction. A bridge structure deserves attention only if it has some remarkable characteristic typically requiring unusual engineering (length of span is a usual criterion) and administration. All bridges on any highway are essential, but the Ohio Turnpike has at most two bridges that anyone could consider remarkable (over the Maumee near Toledo and over the Cuyahoga near Cleveland). Do those two bridges even have names? Is there any lore about them? Neither draws the attention of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Those two bridges (types, span) might merit discussion within the article , but the sloppery-slope argument suggests that in turn every little culvert on some dirt road might qualify if someone could identify it somehow. I doubt that that will happen, or that anyone would ever give a listing of all the bridges, overpasses, and undercrossings of the Ohio Turnpike. Heck, there is no exit list yet, and that would seem a higher priority.--66.231.41.57 06:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Ohio Turnpike however is not an "Interstate Highway"; it is a highway that carries two Interstate Highways. --SPUI (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a rather pedantic view to take (no remarks on the irony, PedanticallySpeaking, please!  :-) ) I would think that the average user would find the distinction vanishingly small to nonexistant; moreover, the capitalization of the actual category doesn't support your position. I'm not looking for a major fight over this, but I'm still totally unconvinced that the article should be removed from the category. Is there a group of third parties that could give insight (like, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways)? --CComMack 21:43, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

The Ohio Turnpike was completed before the Interstate system but incorporated into the system as the sort of pre-existing Interstate-quality highway that would have to be included so that it would not be pointlessly duplicated. Although more than fifty years old it is fully up to modern standards except perhaps that it could use some modifications to make it less monotonous. Highway hypnosis is a hazard on the Ohio Turnpike, at least west of greater Cleveland, and a newer road would have more curves.--66.231.41.57 06:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The capitalization was imposed by others; the intent of the categories has always been, as with the state highway categories, to include numbered routes. As I have unsuccessfully argued on

WP:CFD

, the current capitalization means that any road in multiple states should go in the categories; this is obviously not the intent.

As for WikiProject Highways, that seems to be pretty dead. There are a decent number of people here that edit road-related articles, but no real central place we discuss things. --SPUI (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with SPUI on this point. The Ohio Turnpike designation is distinct from the Interstate Highway system. They happen to coexist. I don't think you will see the Ohio Turnpike listed on any sort of "official" listing of interstate highways. Although I see some other unnumber highway designations are in some other Interstate categories:

I put the article in the category because it has been designated part of the interstate highway system, as clearly shown in the photograph of the route markers. I think categories ought to be broad to help people find stuff easily. There are going to be people who don't know the route numbers but would find themselves looking for the Ohio Turnpike article and it seems logical they might look in the interstate category. PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

Actually they'd probably either type in Ohio Turnpike or note that the Interstate category is inside Transportation in Ohio. --SPUI (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

I am submitting this to mediation to get further opinions on whether the posting of routes that can be used to avoid the Turnpike constitutes original research. User:SPUI keeps removing it, so rather than get into a revert war, I am going to see what others think. --Larrysphatpage 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote for returning the "Shunpiking" section, particularly the first three paragraphs involving the use of Ohio Route 2 between Toledo, Port Clinton and Elyria. That was there when I first found this article. --Zars 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I say the more information the better. Keep it! --cngodles 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but SPUI has a point: The section does need to cite its sources. Is there a travelogue somewhere which recommends the route as an alternate to the Turnpike? If so, that would alleviate concerns of
  original research. -- SwissCelt
  20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have personal knowledge of the route--I drove Ohio 2 every weekend for months when I was working for the railroad in Michigan. 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Zars

Right, that's sort of the point. Because of the

policy on no original research, personal recollections are not adequate references for content. To have a section like that, we need an independently verifiable source.  — JVinocur (talk • contribs

) 09:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "abj" :
  • {{cite news |first=Dennis |last=McEaneney |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Gate 13 A Joins Pike |url=http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_topdoc=1&p_docnum=1&p_sort=YMD_date:D&p_product=NewsBank&p_text_direct-0=document_id=(%200EB6312512DF65DF%20)&p_docid=0EB6312512DF65DF&p_theme=aggregated5&p_queryname=0EB6312512DF65DF&f_openurl=yes&p_nbid=T5BS51BKMTIxMzY2NjYyOS43ODc2OTM6MToxMjoxOTguMzAuMjI4LjA&&p_multi=ABJB |work=[[Akron Beacon Journal]] |publisher= |date=1994-12-02 |accessdate=2008-06-16 }}
  • x

• The annual financial reports for much of the OTC's existence are available on the 10th floor of Kent State University's Main Library. --DangApricot (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

When OTP opened in 1955, the commission stated that once the cost of construction is paid off the highway will become free. This never happened but the roadway has had many good improvements; adding a third lane in some places, adding more exits, resurfacing, renumbering exits to match the mileage from Westgate, rebuilding the food plazas, salting the roadway during icy conditions. I'm sure the upward spiral of diesel fuel used by OTP maintenance vehicles is another factor. Musicwriter (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The source which I'm about to put in the article states two relevant facts:

• Exit 215 opened in June 1993
• The phrase "The $5.8 million split interchange was built...." implying that 215 and 216 were built and opened at the same time.

I would assume, then, that I could put June, 1993 as the open date for 216, but that might fall under

When traveling the Ohio Turnpike and the Indiana Toll Road, I wanted to know in advance about the service plazas, including location by milepost and food services available. I was unable to find this information easily on the wikipedia pages for Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road, so I went elsewhere. On the wikipedia page for the Connecticut Turnpike, I found a much better list of service plaza and locations, but still lacking complete information about food services. Such information would be useful for travelers and especially truck drivers such as myself.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudobserver (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Now for the problem: Both the 65 and 70 mph citations talk about all vehicles. The article text places 70 mph under passenger vehicles, 65 mph under commercial trucks. I had other things to do and don't relish the notion of rewording/restructuring this. Sigh... --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I ran across List of unused highways in Ohio & started placing "See also" entries in the corresponding highway articles. Imzadi1979 reverted the entry in this article with the comment "that entry relies on a satellite image that doesn't back most of the content; per WP:BRD I'm reverting, discuss if you want to re-insert it". Looking at Google & Bing maps, I don't find any evidence of this abandoned ramp being used as "Jersey barrier" shortage; otherwise the ramp, to me, still looks mostly intact. (I'm not sure from the images whether pavement is torn up at the first bend.) With that, I'd like to restore it. Granted, the "List" article is sort of a mess, but I only recently stumbled onto it and have done a bit of cosmetic cleanup. Now, why a lot of stub ramp listings are in articles named "List of unused highways in ZZZ" is beyond me, but that's a whole 'nother issue. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The only source there is a modern-day satellite image of the area. That can't be used to support the sentences:

This road functioned as a stub ramp to U.S. Route 20 for roughly a year, before the Indiana Toll Road was completed to the state line. It is now closed to the public and is used as a storage area for jersey barriers.

Even if that information is true, it's relevance to the Ohio Turnpike is minimal, and it could be included as a single two-sentence mention in this article's history. A see-also listing is overkill for a minor amount of information, that if valid and properly sourced, should just be in this article in the first place. Imzadi 1979 → 21:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you're advocating pulling this kind of information into the relevant articles (and presumably deleting the "List of unused highways" articles). That sounds like a semi-daunting proposition, but perhaps a better way to not have different versions of the same prose floating around in multiple articles. But you subsequently have made more improvements to List of unused highways in Ohio. So, I'm not sure where we are. I don't see a substantial difference between the Ohio Turnpike example and some of the others. So, should we go ahead and restore the "See also" here?? --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What I did was a bare minimum clean up that didn't address the substantive issue: most of that list is uncited and borderline, if not full-on, Original Research. I put the bare URL citations into <ref></ref> tags.

As for the specific case, two sentences about a ramp that was supposedly used to direct traffic off the Ohio Turnpike to a parallel highway before the Indiana Toll Road connection was built. If anything, it isn't an "unused highway" because it was used. Such information should be in this article, and not that one, and I have no position on the rest of the list. (Other than it needs to be cleaned up to address all of the OR-laden passages.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking in misc.transport.road & a few other places. Folks there claim that was the former location of the westernmost toll plaza, "Westgate" as it's usually called. The access road (if it's driveable by anyone other than public safety and ODOT) and the SR 49 interchange are both west of the current Westgate (and east of Indiana) and thus free. If one could exit or enter from it, it wouldn't affect Turnpike revenue... --Chaswmsday (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be, but it ignores the point. This is akin to the situation at M-239 and I-94 in Michigan. Indiana didn't build their section of I-94 at the same time as Michigan, so traffic headed southwesterly had to exit the freeway and use M-239 to cross the border to Indiana. Indiana didn't, IIRC, have its connection to the Ohio Turnpike finished when Ohio opened its road, so a connection to US 20 would have been needed to connect over the state line. In other words, this isn't an "unused highway", it's a "temporary connection", and it should be in the history section of this article, if proper citations can be found. Either way, it's a couple sentences, and a link to the other list isn't warranted. Imzadi 1979 → 00:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can think of a local example where a freeway was extended beyond a temporary end, and all traces of the former access road to the older surface street have been landscaped away. But in this case, the ramp/pavement/whatever is still there. I don't see how this example differs from any of the other stub or former ramps in these articles. It does lack a citation, thus it's tagged. --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you're still missing my point. This isn't "unused", it's "formerly used", and if an appropriate citation can be found (ODOT has old maps posted online, maybe there's one that shows the Ohio Turnpike in the interim before the Indiana Toll Road was finished to the state line...) then this would be an appropriate detail to include in this article. Unless/until that citation is found, it's Original Research and supposition, and it has no place being linked from here. Imzadi 1979 → 02:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Original claims still unverified, but found citations and a map showing the actual nature of this road. Updated List of unused highways in Ohio accordingly. As I see little daylight between "unused" and "formerly used" (e.g. Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike links from List of unused highways in Pennsylvania), restored "See also" to Ohio Turnpike. You might argue that, if we had it to do over, all unused/former roads and stubs should be referenced in the history section of their parent articles, with possibly a Category added to each to corral them all together. Such a fix would probably be better, but w-a-a-a-y too involved for me... Later :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the ODH maps for the relevant era assuming that nobody else had, and while they're tantalizingly close to being useful, they're not. The 1953 map shows a dotted line representing the Turnpike under construction connecting to US-20 at the state line, but the 1955 map (no 1954) shows the symbol for the completed Turnpike stopping at the state line symbol and not touching the symbol for US-20. We all can assume that the Turnpike traffic wasn't directed to the state line just to turn back around, but, unfortunately, we're back to OR. The 1957 map (no 1956) shows the same location for the Turnpike symbol as 1955's but connected to a line representing the "Indiana Turnpike".

With the small window of a year or so, it's going to be very difficult to prove that the roadway in question siphoned Turnpike traffic to US-20. If we want to be really ambitious, we could contact the Turnpike Commission, but I'm not sure that even they would have something that specific for that short amount of time from that long ago. FWIW, they'd probably refer us to the 1955 maps issued, one for the initial partial opening, one for when the whole highway opened later in the year (that info via an old webpage that myself and the other maintainer of Roadfan.com archived on our website citing roadmaps.org; the current location of that info on roadmaps.org is now members-only), but even if copies of those maps still exist, they'd likely only show generalizations, which they did from at least the late 1970s, when I saw my first copy, to their overhaul roughly around 2000. Therefore, they'd still not be RSs, so I'm not sure that it'd be worth the effort. (I know that I'm not making a 100-mile round-trip drive with those odds....)

Side note: While searching the internet for any info on this, I found a 1955 postcard on eBay of the Turnpike (Item 160840310333, already sold) which, even if we could use it in a stretch, is useless: The Turnpike is shown as ending at the box labelled "Westgate", with an ambiguous arrow and "To Chicago" next to it. I have a feeling that things like this are all that's left out there, unless we get really lucky and find blueprints or something of that nature, or happen upon a contemporary newspaper article with extreme detail. Mapsax (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the supplied Google Maps citation for the former location of the Westgate because the map doesn't verify that information. It's a satellite photo of a section of the freeway with no indication that there were a toll plaza there. There is no label saying "former Westgate", no physical evidence that buidlings were located there. Even if there were signs of a former building on site visible in the image, it's

As for the see also link, it's a bit of

Thus, I'm restoring it. In, I hope, a better format... --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, undue weight is also about applying something tangential, and including it in a list of parallel entries implies greater importance than it deserves. Please don't add it until we come to a consensus on how to add it. You were Bold in including, that inclusion was Reverted, and we're still Discussing it. Please see

WP:BRD. Imzadi 1979 →

12:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

About init-capping All Significant Words in Newspaper Headlines in References, I find where

Template:Cite#Examples shows this, but not that it makes that a prescriptive "rule". In fact, WP:CITE/ES shows mixed case. I don't particularly care either way on an article such as this one, which I probably won't revisit, but please permit me to make markup choices as I see fit, and I'll provide you the same courtesy. --Chaswmsday (talk

) 12:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for switching the map link to the USGS "quad"! I found those, but I didn't run across any showing the former Westgate. Also, I found the USGS' interface a real pain. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The ramp closed on August 16, 1956, the day before the Indiana Toll Road connection opened.^[1] There you go, from the archives of The Pittsburgh Press, the citation you need. Now the two-sentence addition can be added.

The proper term is "Title Case", which is what newspaper headlines are, or were historically in some publications, set in. I consistently use Title Case over Sentence case based on

MOS:CT

; newspaper headlines are "composition title". I will also make minor typographical conversions ("US 20" with the non-breaking space instead of "U.S. 20" as called for by The AP Stylebook) and convert headlines/titles to Title Case for overall consistency.

As for the USGS quadrangles, I pulled up one for Montpelier, OH, which is to the east. The adjacent quadrangles are named on the edges and corners, so then I kept searching. In the case of Clear Lake, it's listed on Indiana, even though the namesake feature is in Michigan. It just took a little guessing to pick which of the three possible states it was in, and then downloaded to check, filling in the citation. Imzadi 1979 → 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's actually bad form to cite a primary source where there's a good secondary source for the same information. It's also bad form to have two nearly identical footnotes to the same source. Preventing linkrot is great, but there's ways around it. I've found that it's quite easy to do two things to guard against linkrot with news sources. 1) Dig out the page number from the print edition, allowing anyone to verify against the print copy on microfilm should the link go dead. 2) I also use http://www.webcitation.org/ to pre-emptively archive the online version of a news article and add that with |deadurl=no to the citation template. Then should the link go dead, it's just a matter of removing the |deadurl=no. It's a pair of practices that I've followed with the sources used on U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan), which was my last FA promoted a couple weeks ago. Imzadi 1979 → 13:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the nitpick that I was anticipating: Note my comment "newspaper article with extreme detail" above. Unfortunately, in spite of finding the respective fact in an obscure source (I'm amazed that it exists with the odds at hand of finding it), it simply says that Turnpike traffic accessed US-20 there, not that it actually used the roadway in question. I'm sure that we all assume that fact, but, to the letter, it's OR and/or

WP:SYNTH. (Yeah, I spoil all the fun....) Mapsax (talk

) 14:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Just leave it... --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's really splitting hairs, since we're not likely to find anything better, except a very old quad or a cave painting of a Burma-Shave truck rolling up the road... --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I made you think that we shouldn't leave it. I agree that it's probably the best to be had for all practical purposes. And another aside: You inadvertently stated an irony in the fact that very old topos are actually easier to find than a map of that exact location in that tiny timeframe :) Mapsax (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you found a cite for that! It's definitely better in-line than as a see-also. Had it only been a toll gate access road, in-line would have been bugly here.

Re-added the speed limit cite. It was for 70 mph in 2010; the other was for 65 mph in 2004. See below for problem...

I read

WP:OR synthesis or analysis, it should be OK. Around my neck of the woods, the media always get things wrong - and I'm not referring to political or social biases, but to just plain old factual errors. I much prefer primary sources, taken of course with a grain of salt. --Chaswmsday (talk

) 14:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And as far as Title Case goes, I would probably use it when creating my own scholarly article (right). But, even though it looks prettier, I would personally defer to the source usage. Otherwise, no archy and mehitabel :( --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Ohio Turnpike is somewhat unique in the way it skirts Youngstown, Cleveland/Akron, and Toledo without actually being of much use to daily commuters in those areas. Perhaps this could be elaborated in the article.

This is common among early toll roads; see the Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, Massachusetts Turnpike, and probably others. --NE2 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Masspike used by Western suburb residents to get to/from Boston?

The extension inside

Route 128 was not part of the original construction. --NE2

21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And I remember hearing long ago that the NJ Turnpike was built for traffic between New York City and points south to bypass Philadelphia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Since these numbers are no longer used, and were technically retired by the OTC 8 1/2 years ago, I would propose that they be removed from the exit table. They are no longer relevant to anyone driving the route, as even the OTC has removed the supplemental "OLD EXIT" signs. TravisS1227 (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

They are part of the roadway history. I have just asked that exit numbers 1 and 30 be edited in for the Pa. Tpk. (the Gateway and Delaware River toll plazas on that road) because they were the western and eastern ends (respectively) of the ticket system on that turnpike's mainline. HERE, for the Ohio Turnpike, I recall reading of (old) exit 1 for Westgate and (old) exit 17 for Eastgate; presumably, the Ohio Tpk. ticket system extended along the entire length. I have read in this Wikipedia article that the exit to Ohio 49, near the Indiana border, is unnumbered, and that the Westgate toll plaza was relocated to the east to provide for it.

(Side note: the Ohio 49 interchange does not affect the road being a toll road. If you enter eastbound, you must then pick up an Ohio Turnpike ticket. If you enter westbound, you must then cross the Indiana border and get a ticket for that toll road. I think there is a similar situation along I-90 near the NY/Mass. border.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The toll plazas aren't exits, and we don't list the numbers of plazas in an analogous way as exits. Traffic can't enter or exit the highway there, so the numbers are meaningless other than for reference on the toll tickets. Imzadi 1979 → 20:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think old "exits" 1 and 17 are part of the history, and they can be considered Ohio Turnpike exits, since, although you continued ahead on the same highway, it crossed a state line (becoming Indiana Toll Road westbound and Pa. Tpk. eastbound). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

They aren't exits, period. Traffic does not enter or exit the roadway there, just the zone tolled by the Ohio Turnpike Commission. Imzadi 1979 → 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Per

WP:BRD

, I have reverted the addition of "Previously, tickets for the Ohio Turnpike had Westgate as exit 1 and Eastgate as exit 17. The table below lists old exit 1 as the newer interchange with Ohio 49." and I'm bringing that addition here for discussion.

In short, there are a few errors and issues with that addition.

1. The exit for SR 49 didn't exist when the Westgate was in its old location, so SR 49 (not "Ohio 49", please keep consistent with the nomenclature and abbreviations used in the article) was never "exit 1".
2. Toll plazas aren't exits. Consensus has been that any numbers on toll tickets, which are for accounting-type purposes, are irrelevant to the purpose of an exit list.
3. Any current numbers assigned to the toll plazas on the toll tickets are also missing from the templates that build the exit list table, so pointing old numbers is pointless.

This is the same situation as at Talk:Pennsylvania Turnpike, so please discuss and don't just reinsert your edit. Failure to do so could be construed as edit warring and open to sanctions. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I re-inserted it before reading what you had immediately above, also I have nothing to do with the table having old exit 1 as SR 49.

I've dropped the old number completely for SR 49, and re-removed your note. Imzadi 1979 → 20:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The re-insertion had been done because I was getting some errors and wasn't sure the FIRST insertion had gone through. (No third insertion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Overnight, I recalled the there was a comment ABOUT TOLL TICKETS on the NY Thruway; see under "Collection methods" in the NY Thruway article:

"To distinguish between exit 16 and the Woodbury toll barrier, Thruway tickets list the NY 17 interchange as exit 16 and the Woodbury toll plaza as exit 15, although the actual exit 15 is situated almost 15 miles (24 km) to the south."

So that could be an argument for the inclusion of comments about "exits" 1 and 17 on the Ohio Turnpike. Do you understand what I am saying when I point out that they were actually exits from that turnpike, although they were not from the road one would be traveling on (would be crossing a state line and entering a different turnpike). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

They are not exits from the turnpike; they are boundaries of the tolled zone on the turnpike, and therein lies the difference. Where does traffic at the Westgate and the Eastgate go? For eastbound traffic at the Eastgate, it continues on the Ohio Turnpike to the state line. For westbound traffic at the Westgate, it continues on the Ohio Turnpike, either to the SR 49 exit or to the state line. The Ohio Turnpike is continuous from the Indiana state line to the Pennsylvania state line, even if segments on either end are technically not part of the tolled area. Your argument that traffic enters and exits the turnpike at the toll plazas is therefore false. Traffic on Interstate 75 in Michigan does not leave I-75 heading southbound at the toll plaza for the Mackinac Bridge; rather it continues on I-75 through the tolled area encompassing the bridge. Similarly, traffic on the Ohio Turnpike doesn't leave the turnpike itself at the two toll plazas, it leaves the tolled area. That isn't the same as an exit from the roadway. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Ohio Turnpike has hired a prominent sports marketing firm to help it raise money in a way that would be a first for a U.S. toll road: by selling naming rights to its service plazas, bridges and perhaps even the 241-mile highway." I don't think notability is an issue because of the precedence, as stated; it's just a matter of where in the article to put the info. Mapsax (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This:

• Patch, David (November 13, 2014). "2 Decades Later, Widening of Turnpike Finally Finished: New Lane Open Between Maumee, Perrysburg Exits". The Blade. Toledo, OH.

may be a useful source for some information to add to the article related to the third lane and the service plazas. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the turnpike's Westgate & Eastgate toll barriers have exit numbers is every bit as weird & wonderful as the fact that SR 49 does not. Plus, both these barriers seem to have escape/maintenance roads connected to the local road grid. Might they be pseudo-exits after all? --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

They aren't exits. Those roads of which you speak are for toll takers to access the toll plaza without using the turnpike itself. They're not for the general public to use. The fact that there are numbers would only be appropriate in a discussion of the toll tickets, which is the whole reason they're numbered in the first place. Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

N.B. The "exit" numbers have been signposted for a couple of years now. West East Mapsax (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)