Jump to content

Talk:Millau Viaduct

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caption

[edit]

Candyland? The text under the picture says it is in Millau, candyland. I can't seem to find out how to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.29.95 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that and looking in edit mode see nothing there either. Purge your cache. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest vs. highest distinction, confusion re the Baluarte bridge

[edit]

I've just reverted an edit by someone who wanted to switch the Millau Viaduct from tallest to second-tallest, in favour of Mexico's recently opened Baluarte bridge as the tallest. This claim is inconsistent with the careful distinction between tallest bridges and highest bridges made on the relevant pages. I note that the editor also did not attempt to modify the list of tallest-bridges-page, which still puts the Millau Viaduct at the top, making for an inconsistency.

Tallest, as defined elsewhere on Wikipedia, is talking about the distance from the base of the structure (where it emerges from the ground or the water) and the top of the structure, e.g., the top of a tower or pier. Highest, on the other hand, is talking about the distance from the road deck to the ground or water beneath. It is only on this second measure that the Baluarte bridge seems to be really remarkable, at 390m. The distance from the base of the Baluarte bridge's structure to the top of the piers is actually not listed anywhere in the news articles that I could see, but from the published diagrams here http://highestbridges.com/wiki/index.php?title=Baluarte_Bridge it seems that it is probably no more than 200m maximum.

So, as impressive as the Baluarte bridge is, it really should not be listed as the tallest. In fact it is not the highest bridge either, but I believe it possibly qualifies as the world's highest cable-stayed bridge?

Please don't revert the edit again without defending your reasoning here on the talk page.

81.159.49.168 (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you were penning this, I was in the process of improving the Baluarte Bridge article. The sources only say that the President inaugurated the bridge but say it is not complete! Hence the removal- which I would appreciate if you would restore- I don't edit war- and I am alway suspicious of ip-address edits. To me a bridge is a bridge when you can use it. Baluarte looks superb- but as you say the structure is quite simple. It is a pity we haven't seen, more about it in the past, and we can just hope they don't stick a 6 Euro 80 toll on it to prevent motorists from using it. Do go over to Baluarte Bridge and see if you can help build it up. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Look, I agree that the Baluarte bridge looks like a superb piece of engineering, and it's very spectacular. The wikipedia page for it could do with further development, I agree. But you really did not address the substantive reason behind my edit. Baluarte is *not* the tallest bridge in the sense that Wikipedia has defined "tallest". Tallest is all about the height of the structural parts of the bridge, i.e., the piers or pylons. "Highest" is the criterion that the Baluarte bridge can compete for; it seems to be about 400m from road deck down to the river below. Have you read the wikipedia pages listing "highest" and "tallest" bridges, and their accompanying definitions? Do you have any evidence that Baluarte qualifies for tallest rather than highest? From my inspection of all the images and engineering diagrams I could get my hands on, it looks nowhere near the Millau viaduct in terms of the *height of the structure* rather than the distance to the ground below the structure.

I'm sorry this has come from an IP address edit; you're right, I really should get a proper account. But I am not trying to do mindless vandalism here. I'm disagreeing with you on a very specific point of fact. You say you don't edit-war but someone (perhaps not you) seems to have changed the article straight back again. I will go and get an account now so you will take me more seriously -- although perhaps one would have hoped to be judged on the content rather than the signature! (I'm the same person as above, I've just moved computers in the intervening interval.)

152.78.64.28 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, me again. Turns out I did have a proper account after all, I'd just forgotten about it. So, I don't want to start a mindless edit war, but I'm going to revert the article to clarify that the Millau viaduct is indeed the world's tallest bridge in terms of Wikipedia's own definition of "tallest". I quote here from the relevant page:
"The list of the world's tallest bridges ranks bridges around the world by the height of their structure. The structural height of a bridge is the maximum vertical distance from the uppermost point of a bridge, such as the top of a bridge tower in a suspension bridge, down to the lowest visible point of a bridge, where its piers emerge from the surface of the ground or water. Structural height should not be confused with deck height, which measures the maximum vertical drop distance from the bridge deck (the road bed of a bridge) down to the ground or water surface beneath the bridge span. A separate list of the world's highest bridges ranks bridges by deck height."
There is no evidence at all on the Baluarte bridge page or anywhere else, that the *structural height* of the B. bridge exceeds 343m.
JasonNoble (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the line Later in 2012 it will be surpassed by Mexico's Baluarte bridge[1] In an attempt to accurately report the facts. All of this should not be written in the lead but in a subsection below. I firmly believe we cannot go much farther until the Baluarte bridge page has been improved.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing good faith on that, Clem. But I'm concerned that you're not seeing my main point. The Baluarte bridge is *high* in the sense that it's a long way from the road deck to the bottom of the gorge. However, it is not particularly *tall*, in the sense that the distance from the bottom of the physical structure to the top is no more than 200 metres, and from what I can make out from the engineering diagrams, more like 150 metres. My objection has never been about the Baluarte Bridge's status as open or under construction. It's about the physical properties of the bridge. I'd really appreciate it if you could respond to this aspect of my comments. Have I missed something about the dimensions of the bridge? Do you have a source that indicates it's taller than I think it is?
152.78.64.28 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem on highest/tallest- when it is completed I will leave that judgement to you. But I suspect that Guinness may be using a different definition to us! I have added a ref to Sydney Morning Herald article which sounds if it comes direct from a press release. It is clear there that it is only 83% completed. I have the the highest bridges- engineering diagrams printed off with the aim of adding construction details to the Baluarte article- their is a discrepancy of some 12 metres between clearance and height of road deck- and I was trying to assess whether this was just due to the thickness of the box girders or whether it has something to do with the 5% slope, and clearance being measured from under pier 5 to the valley rather than at a point above the valley. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of observations. We (Wikipedians) do not define "highest" or "tallest". We use reliable sources. If reliable sources differ in how they define "highest" and "tallest", then we acknowledge the differences. If our only source for "tallest" and/or "highest" is a government, agency or company connected to the bridge, then we can only say that the source has claimed that their bridge is "highest", "tallest", or whatever. When reliable third-party sources weigh in, we can cite their judgments on relative height under various criteria. -- Donald Albury 12:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the observation, Donald. I'm not sure I agree though: if you go to the pages listing highest and tallest bridges, and follow the discussions on the talk pages there, it looks as though Wikipedians have indeed imposed some welcome clarification on the conflicting claims to fame of various bridges around the world. I take your point that we shouldn't be engaging in original research, but surely there's a role for conceptual clarification? -- JasonNoble (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow bridge articles as a rule (Millau Viaduct is on my watchlist because I followed a vandal to it), but if Wikipedia editors are indeed creating a classification system for rating bridges, and not just reporting how reliable sources rate them, that is wrong. "Conceptual clarification" sounds like "synthesis" to me. -- Donald Albury 15:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Spiegel Online (In German) 'Es ist noch nicht fertig'
[edit]

There's far too many external links on this page, some of which may be most useful as external links and some of which may be best incorporated as references. I'm not sure which to keep or which to integrate so I've moved them to this talk page for people more familiar with the topic to sort through. If others disagree with this removal, feel free to re-add the links but please consider the advice at Wikipedia:External links. Otherwise, re-add the {{External links}} tag but with an updated date parameter. ClaretAsh 12:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toll Plaza

[edit]

Is toll plaza in 4 km north of bridge or 6 km north of bridge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MEOGLOBAL (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Horizontal Curve Radius of the Viaduct:

[edit]

I have found (from this source: http://atkinson-and-company.co.uk/index.php/photography/11-millau-viaduct ) out that the radius of the viaduct is 20km in length. Maybe it should be mentioned here? I just wanted to let any superiors know if I could add it in EoghanG93 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, add it. Your source is not necessarily impeccable, but at least one of the photographs fully supports the proposition. El Ingles (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

height?

[edit]

Pier 2 total height: 343 m (1,125 ft)
But, when summed up: pier to roadway's level 245 m (804 ft) + road's thickness 4.2 m (13 ¾ ft) + mast 87 m (285 ft) = 336.2 m (1102 ¾)
So, there is 6.8 m (22 ¼ ft) missing somewhere, but where? And how can clearance be 270 metres (890 ft), if tallest pylon is 245 metres and road is 4.2 m thick, totaling 249.2 m (818 ft)? 85.217.42.90 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked the french wiki article and it goes lower between two highest pylons, so that answers the clearance question. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual editor vandalism

[edit]

We seem to have attracted some serious experimenters - I have taken the text back three days but may have lost so important changes- sorry but I am busy else where. I did cross the bridge on the 5th September so I can confirm that the bridge is still there. To our new experimenters can I suggest you try to write some articles on the Tunnel de Pas d'Escalette also on the A75 or Lac du Salagou- Wikipedia is even more rewarding when you have contributed something. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rest area of Brocuéjouls-Aire du Viaduc de Millau or Aire de repos du Viaduc de Millau

[edit]

I am concerned that no one (outside the US) would ever guess that this refers to the 'Aire du Viaduc de Millau´ a Aire de repos to the north of the viaduct noted for its two panorama points. I would like to do a small rewrite- changing the section title to use the official name and introducing the wording 'aire de repos'. I am asking for opinions first. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake?

[edit]

Is this a mistake? "1. the high solution, envisaging a 2,500 m (8,200 ft) viaduct more than 200 m (660 ft) above the river; 2. the low solution, descending into the valley and crossing the river on a 200 m (660 ft) bridge, then a viaduct of 2,300 m (7,500 ft) extended by a tunnel on the Larzac side." It gives the height for both as "660ft", which makes "high" and "low" meaningless, and it gives the height as 890ft elsewhere.AnnaGoFast (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC) AnnaGoFast (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition

[edit]

It would be interesting if anyone can find sources to add to the article: the opponents variously said the bridge wouldn't be used, or it wouldn't solve the congestion (too little impact), or it would take too much traffic away from the town (too much impact)... who was right? Did the bridge fix the problem of too much traffic? Does traffic increase measurably when people come to see the bridge? 72.208.150.248 (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second an update to the impact of the bridge, and would further be interested if there was any kind of notable reception to the bridge--it's design, especially. Honestly, I find it hideously out-of-place in contrast to the surrounding area, but I can't be the only one who's had an opinion. Even if it's just some bridge designers calling it an impressive feat of engineering, it could add to the article. 147.226.205.119 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Millau Viaduct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics - Zenith/plumb angles of the piers.

[edit]

Does anyone know this, or where this information can be found? It's probably in a French-language journal or other document, & unfortunately I only speak & read tourist French. Any pointers gratefully received. [[User talk:Archolman|talk]] (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More confusion between height and tallness, under Construction Records

[edit]

The Construction Records subsection states that "The highest road bridge deck in Europe, 270 metres (890 ft) above the Tarn at its highest point; it is nearly twice as tall as the previous tallest vehicular bridges in Europe, the Europabrücke in Austria and the Italia Viaduct in Italy." This is not wrong, per se, but it is misleading, as the first half of the sentence is about deck height, the second about how tall it is, from base to top of the structure, so structural height. I think it would be better to specify by how much it bested the previous European record for deck height (the Italia viaduct, by 10 m) and then discuss structural height. Should we make two separate points? Or keep the single point but split and expand the sentence? Mariupolo (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Millau_Viaduct&oldid=1194312921"