Talk:M67 motorway

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways: United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Greater Manchester Mid‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but this article doesn't feel entirely neutral to me: notably the mention of "dumping" traffic into Longdendale, use of emotive terms like "tragically" and the last para: "Although the beauty of the Dark Peak area was saved by not completing the motorway, many innocent lives have been lost, in addition to damages to health, time and the environment." I detect a vague pro-motorist bias. Any more experienced Wikipedians care to comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave.Dunford (talk • contribs) 14:16, 19 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave I'm not a long-term prisoner either but I tend to agree with your doubts. The tone certainly is NOT neutral.

(The case of the missing M67 has some history I recollect - it was first advocated at a time when the rail line was still very much up and running - a Minister at the time said (IIRC) that anyone who really knew the area would realise that Londendale was well worth sacrificing - this not long after the CEGB had carefully undergrounded the Supergrid line. There was. I recollect, an outcry. The later scheme to use the n#bore of Woodhead 3 for one carriageway seemed deservedly not to get very far (given the very different needs of an electrified line and a string of motorcars & lorries.))Linuxlad 17:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I have to agree with the lack of neutrality. It's more reflective of opinion rather than fact.

-

i fixed a couple glaring POV's. anyone interested in doing some more work might find http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/67.shtml to be a more useful source of information than the only other source used: pathetic motorways. Stainless steel 02:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Routing of the extension to the M1

This article reads like a definitive route was decided, but then sources the Pathetic Motorways site, which states:

This is a mixture of facts and educated guesses, and attempts to show what might have been. If anyone has any more information, please contact me!

Specifically with regards to the Woodhead tunnels, the article clearly states that one carriageway was to use the tunnels, while the source states that this was extremely unlikely to be viable.Dosxuk (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed cameras?

I don't see any speed cameras on the M67. Did they come and go?

What IS interesting about the M67 is that it's mostly unlit, despite the fact that it's essentially an urban motorway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.82.60 (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

motorway map

That map is useless, it took me minutes of concentrated comparing File:UK motorway map - M67.png and File:UK motorway map - M25.png to find this tiny appendix. Even worse, the M25 is still kind of "highlighted" as there's a difference in colours! axp_de ^Hello! 09:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M67 motorway. 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) 07:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M67 motorway. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816180814/http://www.persona.uk.com/mottram/index.htm to http://www.persona.uk.com/mottram/index.htm

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) 18:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M67 motorway. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040725020708/http://gmcro.co.uk/ftpfiles/groups/gmtag.pdf to http://www.gmcro.co.uk/ftpfiles/groups/gmtag.pdf

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) 12:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]