Talk:Roadway noise
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
please discuss deletion of images before removing
edita user has removed a useful image from this article, which i have restored. if anyone would like to discuss image deletion, this page would be an appropriate place to do so. Covalent 18:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Purpose of photos in article
editWhat actual purpose is there in a picture of cars on a road? We all know what that looks like! And exactly how is it useful to the understanding of the text?--Light current 20:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, i have taught environmental acoustics to graduate students. One question i like to ask early on is whether they know the main source of environmental noise. Fortunately many of them know that roadway noise is the principal cause, but some do not. More importantly i ask what are the main variables in roadway noise. Few are able to enumerate roadway geometrics (grade, etc.), local terrain and vehicle speed as key variables. Thus I think a photo evoking roadway geometrics and varied terrain creates an instructive scenario. I didnt create this image of a roadway so i have no ego involvement here. In fact the image is from a different country from which I live, and I believe in the value of illustrating articles from as many different geographic origins as possible to engage readers throughout the world.Covalent 23:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats a very interesting assumption/conclusion. But is road noise the most damaging to health compared with , say, neighbour noise, aircraft noise, etc? i think neighbor noise is the worst in my street (banging, loud music etc)--Light current 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The thing with roads is that the noise annoyance depends on the proximity of victims to the road. Now in the photograph, there are no victims in sight. Hence I think the photo does not actually illustrate anything.--Light current 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding your first query, roadway noise and aircraft noise are by far the top contributors to health effects, whilst neighbour noise is significant as to annoyance, but total dosage is too low to contribute much to health effects. (Your questions are getting better all the time lc.) Now as to the victims, i think your point is a good one: having sensitive receptors in the photo would improve it.
- I have been reluctant to overload the article with photos of my country, so i would be appreciative if someone from a different country could add an image. It is also difficult to get a good shot of roadway and homes together in the same image. Theres a good challenge for you :). I think you are on track to improve the imagery lc. Thank you for your constructive interest. Covalent 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed the image to one that in my oppinion reflects the topic of the article better than the old one 81.221.90.98 03:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
re-link noise cancellation
editNoise cancellation is: 1)meaningful; 2)relevant to this article; 3)reasonable to expect (at *least* as a link) in an article about the #1 source of noise pollution in industrial society; and 4) verifiable for inclusion as wikipedic content. (see e.g., The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Volume 105, Issue 2, February 1999, p.1243 ;; or http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/175000814)
If you still wish to delete or modify the link, please identify which of these (or other) items you contest as false, and your basis for doing so. We can then discuss and reach consensus. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 13:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Norway Noise Abatement
editThe link to Norway noise profile showing roadway noise accounts for 78% of all noise annoyance - seems to be dead, is there someone familiar with Norse who can update the link. JBQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.43.224 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There was so little or no useful info re noise abatement
editI know I should assume good faith, but I am concerned that the article previously stated that road/tyre noise is as good as it gets, which is contrary to 2001 research. The main issue seems to be that regulators have not been aggressive enough early enough to require quieter tires, and because just a few decades-old vehicles can dominate the soundscape the new 3 dB changes will take years to achieve not much. BenevolentUncle (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)