Talk:Covered bridge - Knowledge (XXG)

1350:. I have previously taken it as self-evident that Encyclopedia Britannica is a reputable source worthy of reference and consideration. If you think this is not true, please explain you thinking. If we are to take this article as a source then it is a very interesting thing that it deals only with covered bridges as wooden truss bridges. I don't have time today to search for anymore sources like it, but I have seen others. I would like to suggest that it is a significant and common thing to think of covered bridges as wooden truss bridges. I definitely agree that we need to have the article deal with other types of covered bridges as well, but I do not think that we can brush aside this (more narrow) notion of a covered bridge as a wooden truss. I think that we have to deal with it somehow. I welcome suggestions and discussion on how it is best to mix these varied definitions of "covered bridge" to have a more accurate article that 1674:, both to investigate your claim and because it just sounds like an interesting structure. It is, undoubtedly, a very interesting bridge. However, claiming Kapellbrücke as the oldest "covered bridge" stirs up a debate that has smoldered here for quite a while: what constitutes a proper covered bridge in contrast to a bridge which just happens to have a cover? Kapellbrücke is definitely a bridge, and it definitely has a cover... it even has trusses. However, it seems that the trusses support only the roof structure. There don't appear to be any trusses used to bear the weight of foot traffic. From what I can tell, this is basically a timber-framed stringer bridge with a roof and therefore, strictly speaking, isn't a "covered bridge". Again, though, I'm basing this analysis on a few photos, so I suppose there may be structural elements to the bridge which aren't shown. — 896:

Curved Multiple King Post though they are a variant of MK's) when discussion of rare truss typologies should perhaps only be discussed under a second category, something other than standard types. When does something rise to the level of requiring a citation? It does not seem feasible nor necessary to do so for every minor edit, especially when minor edits are simply the removal or correction of erroneous information. (how do you cite something that refutes bad or made up information?) Providing citations is for me made somewhat complicated at the moment, with business travel putting me hundreds of miles from my library. Such travel is common for me and likely when I would engage in bursts of editing, though I would likely have some sense of what I might wish to bring next time.

1135:

the expected definition is "myocardial infarction" and not the literal or some other sense of this compound noun which is listed in the disambiguation. A useful definition of a thing refers not just to its description i.e. "covered" but also to why and how it is made. For example, although identical in appearance to legal currency, a counterfeit coin is not at all the same thing as a coin, the definition of which is an object "produced in large quantities ... to facilitate trade ... used as a legal tender". I propose that the article be about the cited definition because the general sense would be too general and would create redundancies for example with

1990:

tell from the cited source, so I retained that reference in the rewritten paragraph (though I did pare down commentary about its longevity). I found it difficult to confirm the claim about the Columbia-Wrightsville Bridge being the longest covered bridge. Many sources informally state as much, though publications concerned with proper covered bridges don't seem to reflect that claim, leading me to believe that it may have possibly been a stringer bridge with a cover. Instead, I mentioned the two longest, extant, confirmed covered bridges. —

1706:

Now Holzbrücke Bad Säckingen does seem to be be an authentic, wooden, through-truss bridge which would certainly qualify as possibly the oldest covered bridge in the world. It is unfortunate that the Knowledge (XXG) article for Holzbrücke Bad Säckingen does not cite a single resource, making it difficult to confirm the construction date. You may very well be on to something with Holzbrücke Bad Säckingen, but we need some authoritative data to confirm that the current bridge really was built in 1700 as has been suggested. —

1911:

bridges were built. Since covered bridges seem to be a nineteenth century phenomenon, it seems a little hard to believe that almost 90% of the US bridges were built after 1900 or before 1820. This leads me to question whether the 12,000 and 1,500 numbers are actually consistent with one another. If the data are consistent, suggest the article add some information about when the BULK of the covered bridges in the US were constructed.

1985:

sources seem to place the total between 12,000 and 15,000 roughly. I ultimately went with the figure stated by the USDOT in its Covered Bridge Manual. The superlatives of oldest and longest covered bridges are also complicated due to the fact that the term "covered bridge", as we've seen here in the Talk page, has a very specific meaning (wooden truss bridge with a cover) but is applied liberally in many sources to

191: 243: 222: 1189:. I see the point about there being some sort of consensus about "Covered Bridge" meaning the timber truss. My research tends to have the same results as yours with most people using the term much like Britannica. I still see an occasional use of the term "covered bridge" to refer to non-truss bridges with a roof. An example is this 1390:"the former describes a structure that earns its keep, one that is as it appears to be, an authentic covered bridge. The other, so-called covered bridges (usually girder-supported bridges with some sort of shed on top) just happen to support a roof and walls, and are not generally considered legitimate covered bridge structures." 1914:

Also confusing in that the section starts off by saying that the oldest covered bridge in the US was built in 1805 (and the longest ever was built in 1814) but two paragraphs later we are told that "The oldest covered bridges in America date back to the 1820s." Which is it, the 1800's or the 1820's?

1473:

is the important distinction. To put it another way: if the "walls" of the bridge could just as easily be entirely omitted from the structure without affecting its functionality, then the bridge load isn't being supported by longitudinal trusses and the bridge would therefore not qualify as a proper

1439:

That particular quotation is pretty convoluted (it's a govt. publication after-all). I believe it's saying that a bridge whose deck surface is not (or was not at one time) supported (held up) by its timber superstructure (walls & roofing) is not a genuine covered bridge. A clearer definition of

536:

I feel the explanation of the reason(s) for contructing covered bridges should be included in the main article. I was told (in 1980's in Central EU) they were meant as a refuge from elements during harvests, but found out recently (in Mass.) that the roof was for roadway protection. This PDF doc also

455:

I added a paragraph concerning one of the key events in the American Civil War's Gettysburg Campaign when a crucial covered bridge (the only one between the state capital of Harrisburg and the Maryland border) was burned to prevent passage over the rain-swollen Susquehanna River. This bridge has been

2047:

I went with "in modern times" because wherever I found the claim that there are "less than 1,000 covered bridges", it was used pretty loosely. Rarely was it framed as "less than a thousand as of "... always more of a generalized claim that less than a thousand have survived since the old days, so to

1526:

That seems like a reasonable suggestion. As usual, my concern would be to try to increase the global treatment of this article. If possible we should include new covered bridges outside of North America. If that is not possible, then that is fine. How would this new section be integrated into the

1332:

and only (s)he and I were engaged in discussion as to what change should be made. I welcome a wider discussion and I am sure that we will improve this article with input from more diverse perspectives. If you look at the edit history and the previous discussion in this thread you can see that this

1953:

I'm going to see if I can't get to the bottom of these numbers as I happen to have a bit of time today. Based purely upon my enthusiast interest in the topic, I'm fairly certain that the 12,000 figure is in the ballpark for the total number of covered bridges cumulatively built in the US. The 1,500

1705:

is a different story, but let's start by dialing back the claim that it was built in 1272. The Knowledge (XXG) article itself states that the bridge was destroyed several times and that the current bridge was built in 1700. Still very early –earlier than any US covered bridge– but far from 1272.

1333:

article used to make it sound like there was no possibility for a bridge to be covered unless it was a wood truss bridge. Cornellier made the change to the article (particularly in the opening section) that some other types of covered bridges do exist and are referred to with the same name. So to

1197:

refers to them as a type of covered bridge. I think that a compromise of all of this might be the best solution. I suggest that we change the article to read something like "The term Covered bridge primarily refers to but may sometimes refer to other bridge types with roofs." (We need to make it

1134:

Is the article about "any bridge that happens to be covered", or the more narrow cited definition a "timber-truss structure carrying a roadway .... The function of the roof and siding ... is to protect the wooden structural members from the weather." If someone looks on wikipedia for "heart attack"

1067:

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica a covered bridge is a "timber-truss structure carrying a roadway .... The function of the roof and siding ... is to protect the wooden structural members from the weather." So I think that this is what the scope of the article should be. A covered bridge is

895:

Of me to edit out some mis-statements and even misinformation, made on this page? As example under Standard Truss Types - the description fails to delineate between King Post and Multiple King Post, then goes on to misname a rare variant, (nowhere else that I am aware of, is a Trussed Arch called a

398:

There were a lot of windows broken in the Sept11 attack too but I don't see it mentioned in the Window article. If this piece of information is really worthwhile (for example if the destroyed skyways were historically or architecturally important) it should be mentioned. At the moment the paragraph

1541:

I'd suggest initially talking about "covered bridges today", in the historical context. E.g. append to the "History and development" section something like: "although modern materials have rendered the covered bridge design obsolete, some are still built for aesthetic (Kicking Horse Pedestrian) or

867:

I remember hearing one reason for the covered bridge was because of horses. A horse might become spooked or reluctant to cross an open bridge over water. The sight and sound of the water was the reason the horses might not cross. A covered bridge fooled the horses into thinking it was just walking

1989:

bridge with a cover. Many of the supposed earliest covered bridges in the US may not have been true covered bridges, owing to the fact that they cannot be confirmed to have borne the weight of traffic with trusses rather than stringers. The 1805 "Permanent Bridge" seems legitimate so far as I can

1910:

Numerical information in this section is confusing. According to the text, over 12,000 covered bridges were built in the United States. The article then goes on to say that 1,500 were built between 1820 and 1900. That statement naturally prompts the question as to when the other 10,500 covered

1146:

calls into question whether the cited encyclopedia definition is too narrow. Searching google (even Australian or South African google) for "covered bridge" overwhelmingly returns links to "timber-truss structure carrying a roadway". A search for "covered bridges of china" returns 7 results. Yes

823:

It should also be noted that a bride can have more than one length. For covered bridges, there is the length of the 1) deck, 2) roof, and 3) span. From what information I have come across, the Calofornia bridge had a longer structure (deck & roof), but the New York brige had the longer span.

803:

Well, the plot thickens... There is a Historical American Engineering Record (HAER No. NY-311) for the Blenheim Bridge, and one on the Bridgeport bridge as well (HAER No. CA-41). I'm going to do some more research and editing on the respective articles before changing anything here. The original

1984:

I've reviewed and rewritten the two paragraphs in question, adding a couple new citations in the process. Some of the figures and claims are tricky. The total number of covered bridges ever built cannot be conclusively known and there is considerable variability in the estimates available. Most

1295:

bridges listed is extremely conceited. While it may be important locally, even from just a historical perspective, that argument holds no water. You can be bold if you like, but don't be surprised if your edit is reverted. I suggest discussing the issue with others here, to determine consensus.

1294:

While the article probably shouldn't constrain itself to just wooden structures (there are unquestionably a number of covered bridges using a variety of materials), the topic should not be cut into several little pages. Also, your assertion that the Kharkiv bridge is more important than all the

1230:

Looks great! That is just what I had in mind. I especially like the addition of the "History and Development" section. I think the long term goal for this article should be to add to that section. It seems like a rich dimension to the topic that there must be a lot of material out there...

841:

Currently in the section marked 'Construction details'. It suggests that the major historic likelihood was to protect the bridge superstructure from the elements. But there are many countries in the world where bridges are made from similar materials (such as wood) which are not covered.

1260:

bridge that is covered. If your sources prove else, than I'm afraid you should check your sources again since we're talking about a very clear English phrase) Accordingly, this article needs to be renamed, rewritten or duplicated with necessary DAB pages. Regarding practice,

1934:

I agree that the figures regarding the number of bridges built seems odd. This should get some attention and research to find a source stating the facts or changes to the information with an updated source. Some of the other sections could use a little update in the writing

1198:

sound more formal than that :-D ). We then go on to make the article mostly about the wooden truss type and throw a section in describing how "covered bridge" is occasionally used to talk about other things. What do you think? Will that be enough to try to counter the

500:

Though wooden covered bridges are unknown in the UK (where I come from), they are common in Switzerland and adjoining areas of Germany (where I now live), where there are probably hundreds of them. They are still building new ones, as footbridges and cycle-track bridges.

1108:. My research into covered bridges verifies that covered bridges in the USA tend to be wooden truss type, but I see that two pictures in the gallery on this page are not truss types. They both appear to be from an Asian culture; one is a covered arch bridge and 2016:

Nice work, thanks. You wrote "1,000 of those covered bridges remain in modern times", but what's meant is "now", right? More specifically why not give the year of the cited report e.g. "As of 2018...". I agree with toning down the laundry-list of superlatives.

1068:

not any bridge that happens to have a covering on it, but rather a wooden truss bridge which includes a weather covering from the structural truss. Typically built in the 1800s in areas of wet and cold weather where wood was a cheap resource.

723:

The covered bridge at Bridgeport, in Nevada County, CA, USA is known to be the longest single-span, wooden covered bridge. Built in 1863, its span is commonly stated as 251 feet. The Knowledge (XXG) page for the Bridgeport bridge is here,

2048:

speak. I don't know if I'm explaining it so clearly. I'll leave it to your discretion if you'd like to sharpen the language a bit; I'm in no way opposed. The count of 880 covered bridges left in the US comes from the 1989 edition of the

1442:

A covered bridge is a timber structure supporting a deck surface that carries loads over an obstruction (e.g., a river). A covered bridge's structural components are protected from the elements by various coverings: walls, roofs, and

1602:

Ah, I've already included it alongside the previous example (got busy at work and didn't reply here), since the NH bridge is not totally verified and because both citations claim "first". Make any adjustments you feel are necessary.

1112:

is either a covered cantilever or covered beam bridge. It is possible that my suspicions are incorrect, but I would like for time to be allowed for research to be done into be sure of a global and historical view of the subject.

1890:

was created by copying content from this article. Per various WP policies the original content should be modified to avoid duplication and content forking. I propose pruning the content under Examples of covered bridges.

1409:

I must say, that's some of the most bizarre and upside down language I've seen. I won't even pretend to understand what kind of distinction between "covered bridge" and "merely covered" they are trying to draw with that.

387:

This is true of any (badly-built) bridge, as the Millenium Bridge debacle in London proved. I don't think it's specific to covered bridges, which is why I moved it out of the main article. Feel free to disagree... :)

1498:

I think it would be interesting to have a section on new bridges which have been built such as in the 20th century or the "last 50 years". Two I know of are the Kicking Horse Pedestrian Bridge which is mentioned in

153: 1376:"for engineers and historic bridge preservationists to provide technical and historical information on preservation of covered bridges." Here's how the FHWA defined a("legitimate" -their word) covered bridge: 1337:'s concerns, we have actually changed the article about six months ago to be more like what you are calling for. I propose that the discussion be about how and if we need to go even further down that road. 456:

an architectural marvel, spanning nearly a mile and a quarter. It was rebuilt after the war, but destroyed again by a windstorm and rebuilt again as an open iron truss bridge for the Pennsylvania Railroad.

1021:

Since vandals throwing stones onto roads and railways are more common than before, bridges over same are increasingly being fitted with wire-mesh sides, and sometimes overall mesh from side to side.

683:

EH? :) (I was gonna add some MI bridges, since it has none....) Kidding aside it could stand to be trimmed. It should have representative images of types and styles but 40+ is probably too many... ++

2094:

lists 814 covered bridges standing in the US plus a few others that don't quite fit their criteria, such as bridges using pony trusses. The cover page states, "Revised through October 15, 2009". --

1772: 1202:? If that sounds good I suggest that we reinstate your previous edits with a modified first sentence and start working on this extra section that I am proposing. I encourage discussion on this. 1037:

Thanks. Since all of the covered bridges I know of cross streams, I suspect adding such mesh to covered bridges is rare. Do you know of example(s) of mesh being installed on covered bridges and

443:

history section. I haven't added it to this article, as I wasn't sure if it make the article to cluttered with pictures, but it's there nonetheless if anyone feels the inclination to use it. --

1269:

is a brick-and-mortar which is listed in this very article about "wooden truss"))) I'm going to be bold about this issue unless a compromise is reached soon. Wishes, 04:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

1469:

The language in the prior quote isn't exactly superb, but I think the important point made is that faux covered bridges are "usually girder-supported bridges with some sort of shed on top".

623:

I have removed the red linked see alsos. While it is great to add to the See also appendice, there should at least be something to see at the additions. Red links have nothing to see.

511:

P.S. The Kapellbrücke is in the centre of Luzern, not "near" as you say. Luzern is the correct spelling. Lucerne is the French spelling, but Luzern is in German-speaking Switzerland.

297: 712:

The town of Blenheim, New York has the longest single-span covered bridge in the world (232 feet), built in 1855. The bridge crosses the Schoharie Creek in the northern Catskills.

564:

47 images in a gallery is an astonishingly large number for Knowledge (XXG), especially since Commons was created for just this purpose. A Commons gallery page (for example, see

1151:

as Knowledge (XXG). I did a bit of research and definitely there are covered bridges in China that fit the definition (I think, don't know if they use timber truss), e.g. this

2140: 287: 2145: 147: 1828: 1824: 1810: 263: 1008: 1962:

in the US in modern times. My guess is that the author of that sentence conflated those two metrics. Regardless, consistent source material is certainly needed. —

1378:

A structure (roof, walls & floor") "supported (or at least supported at one time) by longitudinal trusses built of relatively large (heavy) timber components.

1773:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120224014629/http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/grand_public/vehicules_promenade/reseau_routier/structures/ponts_couverts

768:

I would suggest that Britannia would no longer be considered a covered bridge, but rather a dual-level bridge, since it supports vehicles on the new upper deck.

1542:

historical (Cornish–Windsor) (which was rebuilt?) reasons. That might be a starting point. If there are enough examples then it might merit its own section. --

79: 1190: 568:) needs to be created for this instead, and at that point, sure, the more images the merrier, especially if they can be organized a bit like Xinjiang is. -- 250: 227: 2135: 1266: 1776: 969: 356:

never underestimate culture shock. I'm used to bridges build of brick or stone that withstand the weather, so the idea that a bridge's structure might

1392: 85: 1583:

Thanks for the lead. It might be wise to wait until we have additional verification for this information before we include it. Any thoughts? (

1445: 845:

There has to be a better description of purpose? The article is, otherwise, just a list of examples from around the world of 'covered bridges'.

1752: 44: 471: 421: 30: 1104:. I did this because I wish for more time to be allowed for discussion before this change be made. I have a suspicion that this may not 1265:

is an example of a concrete covered bridge which is much more important than all of the bridges covered in this article so far. Oh, and

869: 852: 406: 1508: 1920: 1285: 731:

While I am by no means an expert, I'll be making the change to the article, as the present article appears incorrect. Any objections?

1800: 583:

I added a new section to the article that gives details about construction techniques and rationale for covering. Thoughts? Ideas?

508:

or search in Google images for "Bad Säckingen holzbrücke". This spans the Rhine, one end is in Germany and the other in Switzerland.

99: 2052:, which is somewhat dated at this point. One would think that the count might change at least a little in 30 years time. There is a 1806:

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

637:

The current image seems like the bridge is a bit small. There surely are better images. If I may be so bold, may I suggest one from

604: 104: 20: 1170: 1084: 420:

I understood the suggestion that livestock were startled was apocryphal - the only reason is to protect the structural timbers.

74: 638: 202: 1782: 1617: 1424: 1309: 973: 784: 336:

Added a bit. It's fairly obvious, if you put a roof and walls over a bridge, it will be better protected from the weather.

168: 1702: 1641: 65: 135: 521:

The roof keeps rain off the wood decking and stops it rotting, this bit is not necessary for a metal or concrete bridge.

1871: 750:(460 ft per span) count? It is no longer standing in its original form, after a fire in its wood and iron "tunnels". -- 1777:

http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/grand_public/vehicules_promenade/reseau_routier/structures/ponts_couverts

1372:

In APRIL 2005, the U.S. Department of Transportation's The Federal Highway Administration researched and published a

2103: 1614: 1421: 1306: 780: 1351: 1199: 1148: 1143: 1105: 538: 109: 1636:

The bridge you quote may be the oldest in the USA (1789), but is is no way the oldest in the world, not when the

725: 692: 650: 1827:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

961:

Pierce, Phillip C.; Brungraber, Robert L.; Lichtenstein, Abba; Sabol, Scott; Morrell, J.J.; Lebow, S.T. (2005).

129: 1940: 901: 425: 319:

as a brit, I've only seen these in films. What are they for? why are they covered? what are the advantages? --

208: 1753:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150803183705/http://www.woolwich.ca/en/tourism/West-Montrose-Covered-Bridge.asp

873: 410: 1924: 1887: 1862: 1744: 856: 755: 1916: 1273: 1158: 1072: 848: 608: 600: 402: 366: 342: 325: 125: 2107: 1281: 897: 55: 1846:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1834: 262:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1743:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1564:

An e-mail to OTRS has pointed out that a bridge in New Hampshire may in fact be the oldest, please see

1152: 1101: 838:

As a subject in an encyclopedia, I just think the reason why they were built should be explored more.

70: 1762: 555: 385:

When crossing a covered bridge, soldiers must march out of step to avoid causing vibrational damage.

175: 2022: 1896: 1756: 1547: 1347: 1262: 1221: 1166: 1080: 481: 440: 912: 396:

Some covered bridges (skyways) were ruined in the September 11th attacks, at the World Trade Center.

190: 2061: 1995: 1967: 1936: 1711: 1679: 1588: 1532: 1516: 1504: 1500: 1479: 1359: 1236: 1207: 1118: 1046: 941: 717: 664: 161: 1801:

http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2004/docs/s10/francois.pdf

716:

This does not appear to be true. The Knowledge (XXG) page for the above mentioned bridge is here,

1794: 1611: 1418: 1325: 1303: 1027: 805: 776: 751: 732: 1831:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1847: 915:! Similar to the comments already on your talk page, please just make sure that the edits use 1573: 1334: 1277: 988: 459: 51: 1649: 1109: 809: 747: 736: 141: 1854: 1474:

covered bridge. Generally, the presence of load-bearing trusses is the qualifying factor. —

1142:

So I think from the above we need a narrower definition but then the point you raise about

2018: 1892: 1783:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120723182226/http://64.118.88.11/~nblight/bridges/index.html

1543: 1452: 1399: 1329: 1217: 1186: 1162: 1097: 1076: 1001: 890: 624: 476: 1671: 1637: 1346:

That said, I request that anyone who wishes to engaged in further discussion to consider

1038: 916: 868:

over solid ground. I have no sources other than what was told to me by an old Vermonter.

2099: 2057: 1991: 1963: 1813:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1736: 1707: 1675: 1584: 1528: 1512: 1475: 1355: 1232: 1203: 1128: 1114: 1042: 937: 825: 660: 597:?? History of Covered Bridges in the U.S. is incomplete and in many places inaccurate! 554:

Can I add another image to the gallery of covered bridges or are there already enough?

337: 24: 1853:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1820: 920: 2129: 1606: 1413: 1298: 1023: 962: 771: 688: 646: 569: 444: 389: 1507:. Major restoration or reconstruction projects are interesting too such as when the 1328:

that further discussion is necessary. The last major edit of this page was made by

1569: 1100:. I undid the modifications you made to make the article conform to the definition 565: 361: 320: 1786: 1256:

Ladies and gentlemen, I couldn't agree less. A "covered bridge" is most certainly

1216:

OK, check it out! Probably still needs some work, but enough for one edit .... --

1645: 924: 584: 541: 522: 1819:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1448: 1395: 1193:(it appears to be a stone beam bridge). I also noticed that the article about 2053: 1527:

current organization or how would the organization be changed to fit it in?

2095: 474:

has a strange license tag and needs to be replaced with a free alternative.

1565: 1511:

was redone. The skills and knowledge to build these bridges is not lost!

684: 642: 936:

I agree - here is an online source that may be useful while you travel.

439:

I've recently uploaded an image of Potter's Bridge (covered bridge), in

2110: 2065: 2026: 1999: 1971: 1944: 1928: 1900: 1876: 1715: 1683: 1653: 1623: 1592: 1577: 1551: 1536: 1520: 1483: 1456: 1430: 1403: 1363: 1315: 1240: 1225: 1211: 1174: 1122: 1088: 1056: 1031: 951: 931: 905: 877: 860: 828: 813: 790: 759: 740: 695: 674: 653: 627: 612: 587: 572: 558: 544: 525: 487: 429: 414: 370: 346: 329: 1958:

off, but it does sound roughly close to the count of covered bridges

1194: 1136: 659:

Yes please - while you are at it do you want to axe the gallery? ;-)

259: 255: 1763:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070808201642/http://www.langqiao.net/

1757:

http://www.woolwich.ca/en/tourism/West-Montrose-Covered-Bridge.asp

242: 221: 1131:. Thanks for your feedback. I think there are two issues here: 505: 399:

does not make any sense (so I'm moving it out of the article).

184: 15: 1766: 1747:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2056:(published 2009), but I have no access to the contents. — 1231:

Thanks for your hard work on this significant rewrite.

963:"Covered Bridge Manual: Publication No. FHWA-HRT-04-098" 1740: 504:

One of the oldest and longest is in Bad Säckingen. See

160: 1380:

The authors of the report made a distinction between

254:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1823:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 804:spans are nearly equal in length, around 210 feet. 539:

Oregon Covered Bridges Introduction (see Bookmarks)

514:To Tarquin: The advantages of covered bridges are: 472:

Covered bridge Franconia Notch SP New Hampshire.jpg

174: 1440:a covered bridge is given a couple pages later. 518:Strength - same principle as a box girder bridge 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1882:Duplicated content with List of covered bridges 1787:http://64.118.88.11/~nblight/bridges/index.html 1503:and the bridge at Guelph, Ontario mentioned in 497:This section is very lean and needs expanding. 272:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels 1809:This message was posted before February 2018. 8: 641:? There are others out there to be sure. ++ 598: 400: 364: 340: 323: 216: 2141:Top-importance Bridge and Tunnel articles 1735:I have just modified 4 external links on 1007:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 976:, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 2146:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels articles 1566:http://www.nh.gov/nhdhr/bridges/p15.html 275:Template:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels 360:doesn't immediately spring to mind. -- 218: 188: 997: 986: 450: 2090:I found it: the 2009 edition of the 7: 1348:this Encyclopedia Britannica article 248:This article is within the scope of 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2136:C-Class Bridge and Tunnel articles 2054:much more recent edition available 1191:Japanese Covered Bridge in Vietnam 1147:Google may be subject to the same 14: 1739:. Please take a moment to review 704:Longest single-span coverd bridge 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 579:New Construction Details Section 241: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 1560:Oldest remaining covered bridge 970:US Department of Transportation 292:This article has been rated as 251:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels 2092:World Guide to Covered Bridges 2050:World Guide to Covered Bridges 1509:Cornish–Windsor Covered Bridge 1102:read in Encyclopedia Britanica 1089:21:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 1063:Definition of a covered bridge 1057:12:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC) 1032:10:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC) 974:Federal Highway Administration 451:World's longest covered bridge 347:22:27, 13 September 2002 (UTC) 330:20:41, 13 September 2002 (UTC) 1: 2066:15:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC) 2027:22:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 2000:17:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 1972:15:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 1945:13:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 1929:01:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 1552:04:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC) 1537:20:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 1521:13:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC) 1484:20:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 861:15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 559:21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 266:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 1241:01:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 708:The present article states, 696:03:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 675:03:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 654:01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 628:19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 545:00:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC) 506:http://www.bad-saeckingen.de 430:14:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 371:17:38, 8 December 2002 (UTC) 1901:20:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC) 1877:22:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC) 1226:01:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 1212:03:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 1175:16:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 1123:05:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 1041:to cite these examples to? 878:15:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC) 829:20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 814:07:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 791:17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 760:07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 741:07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 2162: 1840:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1732:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1716:01:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC) 1684:00:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC) 1654:18:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1624:02:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 1593:02:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 1578:20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC) 613:08:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 588:17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 462:12:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) 298:project's importance scale 278:Bridge and Tunnel articles 2111:00:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 1457:23:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC) 1431:23:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC) 1404:22:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC) 1364:15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC) 1316:04:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC) 726:Bridgeport Covered Bridge 593:Incomplete and inaccurate 573:03:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 526:12:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC) 493:Covered bridges in Europe 488:23:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) 447:03:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) 415:19:38, 8 March 2005 (UTC) 392:16:15 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC) 291: 236: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 1767:http://www.langqiao.net/ 1703:Holzbrücke Bad Säckingen 1642:Holzbrücke Bad Säckingen 1386:bridges that are covered 1352:represents a global view 952:02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 932:01:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 921:the verifiability policy 906:18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 1888:List of covered bridges 1728:External links modified 1106:represent a global view 633:Image could be improved 466:Image needs replacement 834:Why were they built..? 714: 434: 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 1954:number is definitely 1374:Covered Bridge Manual 710: 201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 1821:regular verification 1640:claims 1333 and the 441:Noblesville, Indiana 105:No original research 1811:After February 2018 1672:Luzern Kapellbrücke 1638:Luzern Kapellbrücke 1505:Eramosa River Trail 1501:Kicking Horse River 911:Yes - absolutely. 718:Old Blenheim Bridge 537:supports that idea 269:Bridges and Tunnels 228:Bridges and Tunnels 1865:InternetArchiveBot 1816:InternetArchiveBot 996:Unknown parameter 380:Vibrational damage 315:What are they for? 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 1919:comment added by 1841: 1670:I took a look at 1621: 1428: 1313: 1290: 1276:comment added by 1178: 1161:comment added by 1092: 1075:comment added by 1053: 1017:Vandal protection 948: 884:Is it reasonable? 851:comment added by 788: 671: 615: 603:comment added by 417: 405:comment added by 373: 349: 332: 312: 311: 308: 307: 304: 303: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2153: 1960:that still exist 1875: 1866: 1839: 1838: 1817: 1798: 1622: 1609: 1429: 1416: 1314: 1301: 1289: 1270: 1177: 1155: 1091: 1069: 1051: 1012: 1005: 999: 994: 992: 984: 982: 981: 967: 946: 929: 917:reliable sources 894: 863: 789: 774: 748:Britannia Bridge 669: 566:commons:Xinjiang 484: 479: 280: 279: 276: 273: 270: 245: 238: 237: 232: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2161: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2126: 2125: 1908: 1884: 1869: 1864: 1832: 1825:have permission 1815: 1792: 1745:this simple FaQ 1730: 1604: 1562: 1496: 1411: 1388:, stating that 1382:covered bridges 1296: 1271: 1156: 1070: 1065: 1050: 1019: 1006: 995: 985: 979: 977: 965: 960: 945: 925: 888: 886: 846: 836: 769: 706: 668: 635: 621: 595: 581: 552: 534: 495: 482: 477: 468: 453: 437: 435:Potter's Bridge 382: 317: 277: 274: 271: 268: 267: 230: 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2159: 2157: 2149: 2148: 2143: 2138: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1948: 1947: 1937:Steve Lux, Jr. 1907: 1904: 1883: 1880: 1859: 1858: 1851: 1804: 1803: 1789: 1781:Added archive 1779: 1771:Added archive 1769: 1761:Added archive 1759: 1751:Added archive 1737:Covered bridge 1729: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1597: 1596: 1561: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1434: 1433: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1319: 1318: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1180: 1179: 1140: 1064: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1047: 1018: 1015: 1014: 1013: 957: 956: 955: 954: 942: 898:JosephGJohnson 885: 882: 881: 880: 835: 832: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 796: 795: 794: 793: 763: 762: 705: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 678: 677: 665: 634: 631: 620: 617: 594: 591: 580: 577: 576: 575: 551: 548: 533: 530: 529: 528: 519: 494: 491: 467: 464: 452: 449: 436: 433: 422:213.83.125.109 381: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 369:comment added 351: 350: 345:comment added 328:comment added 316: 313: 310: 309: 306: 305: 302: 301: 294:Top-importance 290: 284: 283: 281: 264:the discussion 246: 234: 233: 231:Top‑importance 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 25:Covered bridge 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2158: 2147: 2144: 2142: 2139: 2137: 2134: 2133: 2131: 2112: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1912: 1906:United States 1905: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1881: 1879: 1878: 1873: 1868: 1867: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1836: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1812: 1807: 1802: 1796: 1790: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1727: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1704: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1644:claims 1272. 1643: 1639: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1625: 1619: 1616: 1613: 1608: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1559: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1493: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1432: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1415: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1336: 1331: 1327: 1324:I agree with 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1311: 1308: 1305: 1300: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1268: 1264: 1259: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200:systemic bias 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1154: 1150: 1149:systemic bias 1145: 1144:systemic bias 1141: 1138: 1133: 1132: 1130: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1062: 1058: 1055: 1054: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1016: 1010: 1003: 990: 975: 971: 964: 959: 958: 953: 950: 949: 939: 935: 934: 933: 930: 928: 923:. Regards. 922: 918: 914: 910: 909: 908: 907: 903: 899: 892: 883: 879: 875: 871: 870:24.45.191.151 866: 865: 864: 862: 858: 854: 853:86.149.220.53 850: 843: 839: 833: 831: 830: 827: 815: 811: 807: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 792: 786: 782: 778: 773: 767: 766: 765: 764: 761: 757: 753: 752:Old Moonraker 749: 745: 744: 743: 742: 738: 734: 729: 727: 721: 719: 713: 709: 703: 697: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 676: 673: 672: 662: 658: 657: 656: 655: 652: 648: 644: 640: 639:this category 632: 630: 629: 626: 618: 616: 614: 610: 606: 602: 592: 590: 589: 586: 578: 574: 571: 567: 563: 562: 561: 560: 557: 549: 547: 546: 543: 540: 531: 527: 524: 520: 517: 516: 515: 512: 509: 507: 502: 498: 492: 490: 489: 486: 485: 480: 473: 465: 463: 461: 457: 448: 446: 442: 432: 431: 427: 423: 418: 416: 412: 408: 407:80.186.83.179 404: 397: 393: 391: 386: 379: 372: 368: 363: 359: 355: 354: 353: 352: 348: 344: 339: 335: 334: 333: 331: 327: 322: 314: 299: 295: 289: 286: 285: 282: 265: 261: 257: 253: 252: 247: 244: 240: 239: 235: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2091: 2049: 1986: 1959: 1955: 1921:47.45.38.254 1915:— Preceding 1913: 1909: 1885: 1863: 1860: 1835:source check 1814: 1808: 1805: 1734: 1731: 1563: 1497: 1470: 1441: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1371: 1335:Ukrained2012 1278:Ukrained2012 1272:— Preceding 1257: 1255: 1157:— Preceding 1071:— Preceding 1066: 1045: 1020: 978:. Retrieved 940: 926: 887: 844: 840: 837: 822: 730: 722: 715: 711: 707: 663: 636: 622: 599:— Preceding 596: 582: 553: 535: 513: 510: 503: 499: 496: 475: 469: 460:Scott Mingus 458: 454: 438: 419: 401:— Preceding 395: 394: 384: 383: 365:— Preceding 357: 341:— Preceding 324:— Preceding 318: 293: 249: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 1886:A new page 1494:New bridges 847:—Preceding 605:24.62.51.82 556:Pendragon39 148:free images 31:not a forum 2130:Categories 2019:Cornellier 1893:Cornellier 1872:Report bug 1544:Cornellier 1330:Cornellier 1218:Cornellier 1187:Cornellier 1163:Cornellier 1098:Cornellier 1077:Cornellier 980:2008-06-26 625:IvoShandor 470:The image 2058:Jgcoleman 1992:Jgcoleman 1964:Jgcoleman 1855:this tool 1848:this tool 1795:dead link 1708:Jgcoleman 1676:Jgcoleman 1585:Lexandalf 1529:Lexandalf 1513:Jim Derby 1476:Jgcoleman 1356:Lexandalf 1233:Lexandalf 1204:Lexandalf 1129:Lexandalf 1115:Lexandalf 1110:the other 1049:<: --> 1043:Ruhrfisch 1000:ignored ( 944:<: --> 938:Ruhrfisch 826:MJBurrage 746:Does the 667:<: --> 661:Ruhrfisch 619:See alsos 338:Ortolan88 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 1917:unsigned 1861:Cheers.— 1607:Huntster 1414:Huntster 1299:Huntster 1286:contribs 1274:unsigned 1171:contribs 1159:unsigned 1085:contribs 1073:unsigned 1024:Tabletop 989:cite web 849:unsigned 785:contribs 772:Huntster 601:unsigned 570:Interiot 445:Randolph 403:unsigned 390:charlieF 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 1799:tag to 1741:my edit 1570:ukexpat 1326:Hunster 1195:skyways 998:|month= 913:Be bold 550:Gallery 532:Reason? 367:undated 362:Tarquin 343:undated 326:undated 321:Tarquin 296:on the 260:tunnels 256:bridges 199:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 1935:style. 1791:Added 1646:TiffaF 1443:decks. 1153:bridge 1137:Skyway 1127:Hello 891:helpme 806:Djd sd 733:Djd sd 585:Mmoyer 542:Wikiak 523:TiffaF 205:scale. 126:Google 1449:Drdpw 1396:Drdpw 1267:there 1048:: --> 1039:WP:RS 966:(PDF) 943:: --> 781:email 666:: --> 483:shtak 478:Pagra 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2062:talk 2023:talk 1996:talk 1968:talk 1941:talk 1925:talk 1897:talk 1712:talk 1680:talk 1650:talk 1589:talk 1574:talk 1568:- -- 1548:talk 1533:talk 1517:talk 1480:talk 1471:That 1453:talk 1400:talk 1384:and 1360:talk 1282:talk 1263:here 1237:talk 1222:talk 1208:talk 1167:talk 1119:talk 1081:talk 1028:talk 1009:link 1002:help 919:per 902:talk 874:talk 857:talk 810:talk 777:talk 756:talk 737:talk 609:talk 426:talk 411:talk 258:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2096:Waz 1987:any 1956:way 1829:RfC 1785:to 1775:to 1765:to 1755:to 1354:. ( 1258:any 685:Lar 643:Lar 358:not 288:Top 176:TWL 2132:: 2064:) 2025:) 2017:-- 1998:) 1970:) 1943:) 1927:) 1899:) 1891:-- 1842:. 1837:}} 1833:{{ 1797:}} 1793:{{ 1714:) 1682:) 1652:) 1605:— 1591:) 1576:) 1550:) 1535:) 1519:) 1482:) 1455:) 1412:— 1402:) 1362:) 1297:— 1288:) 1284:• 1239:) 1224:) 1210:) 1173:) 1169:• 1121:) 1087:) 1083:• 1030:) 993:: 991:}} 987:{{ 972:, 968:. 904:) 893:}} 889:{{ 876:) 859:) 812:) 783:• 779:• 770:— 758:) 739:) 728:. 720:. 687:: 645:: 611:) 428:) 413:) 156:) 54:; 2108:E 2106:- 2104:C 2102:- 2100:T 2098:: 2060:( 2021:( 1994:( 1966:( 1939:( 1923:( 1895:( 1874:) 1870:( 1857:. 1850:. 1710:( 1678:( 1648:( 1620:) 1618:c 1615:@ 1612:t 1610:( 1595:) 1587:( 1572:( 1546:( 1531:( 1515:( 1478:( 1451:( 1446:2 1427:) 1425:c 1422:@ 1419:t 1417:( 1398:( 1393:1 1366:) 1358:( 1312:) 1310:c 1307:@ 1304:t 1302:( 1280:( 1235:( 1220:( 1206:( 1185:@ 1165:( 1139:. 1117:( 1096:@ 1079:( 1052:° 1026:( 1011:) 1004:) 983:. 947:° 927:7 900:( 872:( 855:( 824:— 808:( 787:) 775:( 754:( 735:( 693:c 691:/ 689:t 670:° 651:c 649:/ 647:t 607:( 424:( 409:( 300:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index