Template talk:Infobox Australian road/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Discussion

I have copied this across to replace the various WA road templates. It will need to be expanded/fixed to handle the rest of Australia but there's nothing WA-specific in here, so that should not be a problem. I was surprised to note no other state has such a template, and seem to be doing it manually - I like Bruce Highway and I'd like to see what we can do to incorporate some of their ideas. Orderinchaos 10:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just today I looked at Bruce Highway and found Template:QLDRoad... and thought "Those guys who started the Infobox Australian Place box would do a good job on something like this!" So I checked to see if Template:Infobox Australian Road existed and here I am! IMO the Australian Place one is great and this one should follow a similar style. I presume the scope covers any notable car/truck transport route? - ie. freeways, highways, major roads and city streets? -- Chuq 06:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't really been discussed, but I'd assume so! The status as such is more that it replaces the WA ones, so there'll be stuff that can be improved all over the place. I actually liked the Bruce Highway one as it contained some stuff this one didn't (like titles on the route images and so on). BTW don't worry about the "route" field too much - it's been kept for backward compatibility only. Orderinchaos 07:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This has an Infobox Australian Place feel. what is being done replaced? --TheJosh 11:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you rephrase that last sentence? :P Yes, it does have an IAP feel, because I thought the IAP template looked so great the style would suit other Australian geographical articles :) If you are asking what templates are being replaced - well, haven't got a list, but I guess any Australian highway/road/street templates. -- Chuq 12:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We had four WA ones, all of which have now been superseded (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_26#Australian_road_templates_consolidation) by this one. Most of the country is using manual boxes, while Vic freeways have entirely their own and someone dug up a QLD Road one. I'm sure as we look further we'll find even more, especially for smaller entities like city streets. Orderinchaos 14:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Testing

Just playing about here! Ideas:

• Set the "through" field automatically use smaller text (font-size:90%)
• Include distances (like dist# and location# in Place template)
• Have a set definition on which end is the "start" and which is the "finish" :)
• Auto generate the correct shield image from a variable, so no need to know the image names
• Have a different colour background in the 'header' depending on if it is highway, street, etc. like the Place template.

Not that I'm making requests or demands, I was just wondering which of these people thought were more important! (Or not a good idea to start with!) -- Chuq 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You will notice the result of more of my testing on the right. Setting type=highway makes it green, type=street makes it red. Haven't done anything else fancy (such as making variables optional based on the type) yet! -- Chuq 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All good ideas. I think we must always keep two objectives in mind:

* Ease of use for the editor employing the template (eg automating manual tasks, reducing effort required to update/adjust)

* Ease of reading for the casual reader (not to mention usefulness) - if it misleads in any way (unintentionally), not good.

Seems your ideas try to address both of these, which is excellent. Another I'd like to see is something which can handle roads which are broken up into multiple sections (Calder Freeway is a good example of where this would be necessary). As an aside, I've made "through" optional so it can be used better for city streets Orderinchaos 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot

Hey, If you want to use my bot for this project, i can set it up for you. Just ask. --TheJosh 12:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks heaps - appreciated! Orderinchaos 14:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Road Types

As Chuq mentioned above, the template now colours the road name based on the setting of type. I've added another type, "road" for use in arterial road articles. So the possible values for type are:

• Highway - for use with highways - colour = green
• Road - for use with arterial roads within cities (roads between suburbs) - colour = yellow
• Street - for use with main streets in cities (streets just in the city centre) - colour = red

There is probably a lot of logic that can be built into this template based on the value of the type setting. I've noticed that many of the articles that don't use this infobox yet use "Suburbs along road" or "Towns along highway" instead of "via". I think it would be good if the template worked out which text to use based on the value of type.GK1 14:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea! A lot is still in its infancy - the "via" is a legacy of its origins and can definitely be changed if a better version can be come upon. I like your idea of the template selecting it - now we've just got to figure out how to tell the template whether it's urban or rural, so it would be "x along y" basically. Orderinchaos 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. It now says "Towns along highway" for highways, "Suburbs along road" for roads and "Location" for streets. It still says "via" if the type parameter isn't specified. I've also changed the template it's based on to "infobox geography". GK1 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I have changed the "infobox geography" back to "infobox" - so that it matches the look and feel of Template:Infobox Australian Place, which this was based on. Other changes are great though! -- Chuq 03:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I forgot it was based on that template. I've now made the background on the left column the same blue colour as the Australian place template, so it should look very similar now. GK1 08:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional road types

I notice Monash Freeway uses this infobox, but without a 'type' as none of the current ones are suitable. At the moment we have:

• Highway (green)
• City highway (green)
• Road (yellow)
• Street (red)

I'll attempt to add a fifth category, "Freeway", which would be blue - and test it on that page. -- Chuq 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Order of fields

I think it looked better when the "To" field was directly after the "From" field. "From A, via B, to C" looks strange compared to "From A, to C, via B". Thought I'd better see what other people thought before changing it back though. GK1 14:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good point - I agree with that! Though it kinda makes sense both ways though.. "A via B to C" is the order in which the towns (etc) are on the physical highway! hmm... -- Chuq 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Text size

I just converted Brooker Highway to use this template, I can't help but think that the font size on the previous version looks better than the new version. Does anyone else agree? -- Chuq 01:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't help myself. I'm (1) impatient (2) bold! -- Chuq 02:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fantastic! :) Good work. Orderinchaos 04:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Auto categorisation

I was about to copy the auto-categorisation features of WP:IAP but then I realised that highways often cross state borders. (One of things you don't really think about when you live in Tasmania!) The fact that there isn't an existing state parameter doesn't help either. Is this worth doing or would it not be used for most other states? -- Chuq 05:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Australian Station?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide#Station Infoboxes that participants here may be interested in, with a suggestion to develop a standard infobox along the lines of this and {{Infobox Australian Place}} for railway stations.--cj | talk 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Length Required field?

Is it possible to make length a non-required field? In some circumstances the article may not yet be filled in with this information, yet an infobox would still be appropriate? Muzzamo 15:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Done - thanks for raising this issue. Orderinchaos 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for fixing so promptly :-) Muzzamo 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

:) If you have any other suggestions we're always open to them, the template started off as just a Good Idea(tm) and the right thing to do, and most development has really proceeded based on what users think is needed (or not needed). Orderinchaos 02:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox conversion proposal

Recently, there has been a project to update the infoboxes used on highway articles for accessibility and MOS requirements. One template, {{infobox road}} was updated in terms of appearance and accessibility. Rather than update another 55 or so templates, IR was updated on its backend to better handle any country's road system. As a result, any specialized templates for continental Europe or Asia have been converted and deleted. New Zealand and Papua New Guinea already switched, and two other minor Australian templates were switched as a bold trial run without objection. I'm now proposing that this template be switched to complete the Australian conversion. We are implementing the color scheme from this template in IR now so that the country and type codes will colorize the headers in the same colors as this template. There are two remaining countries left to convert, Ireland and the UK, and preparations are in place to propose those switches. Once done, all highway articles will have complementary infoboxes, with unique individualized color schemes for the countries that want them.

Is there any objection to such a conversion? Imzadi 1979 → 04:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As they say in court, "Hearing no objection, so ordered." Imzadi 1979 → 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo parameter is coming. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A reason that no objections have been made might be that this page template is not being watched. I only discovered this conversation when you changed two roads that are on my watchlist. It might have been more prudent to mention this at WP:AUSTRALIA. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection, I don't see a need to have multiply copies of the same template. d'oh! _talk 04:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually in favour of the move (as probably the primary maintainer of IAuR), based on what I can see at Great Ocean Road and Spencer Street, Melbourne. As long as strange cases like Roe Highway (part of a Perth ring road) and M2 Hills Motorway (a tollway in Sydney) can be accommodated, then I see no problems arising. Agreed with AussieLegend that it's a good idea to let the project know when proposing a change. Orderinchaos 05:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I infact oppose the change! There should be some discussion with the Australian project before such changes are made. Bidgee (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you oppose? I proposed the change here because with all of the discussions here, it seemed to me like the concerned editors watchlisted this talk page. Plus, two other infobox templates were previously converted without any notice. As for notifying the parent project, the affected articles also fall under the scope of WP:HWY which is standardizing on the proposed template. Imzadi 1979 → 06:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The layout is ok but not good (needs work as some stuff is not needed [e.g. Highway system section], needs to be moved [e.g. the route maker in the heading] around and some other stuff added [e.g. Infobox heading is too small] which is where this template is better other the forced standard) but my main issue is that the new infobox will become bloated and complex when you force standardisation of other countries (it has been proven with other templates which cause more harm then good to project outside the US). Fact is those who also edit the effected highway articles should be informed (hence the Australian project) as we do not watch the template page and alot of us are not members of the Highway project. Bidgee (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Highway system" section links to the standard list(s) or articles for the over all system of highways for that country or state. There are links that will appear for an individual Australian state in that section if specified. The heading is the standard size for all infoboxes using {{infobox}}. As for standardization, it's already been done through individual subtemplates by country. Australia is already supported, along with most of the world. Imzadi 1979 → 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection here, the proposed standard infobox could do with a bit work from a viewers point (for example the Headers) Sb617 (Talk) 15:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

The colors for the headers were copied from this template, but are totally customizable. For the US and Canada, the default color is a green roughly equal to what is on the background of our highway signs. The Canadian freeways get guide sign blue. There is brown for historical and orange for under construction as well. Otherwise the default is a light blue shade. Imzadi 1979 → 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What concerns did you have with the headers? –Fredddie™ 01:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Last call for comments. It appears that there is consensus to make the switch, so conversions will recommence later today (my time zone) after I get some sleep and I complete a research errand to the main library downtown. Imzadi 1979 → 06:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't say or call then comments close! Again you haven't commented on my concerns so at this stage I'm still opposing the conversion. Bidgee (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on your concerns above. I will reiterate: 1) {{infobox road}} uses {{infobox}} as its core, so the heading text size is the standard. This template is not the standard. 2) {{infobox road}} already supports Australia, and every other country, through the usage of customizable subtemplates. That means the core template itself is not bloated to accommodate standardization. In fact, other language editions of Wikipedia have a single infobox for highway articles regardless of country. The English Wikipedia before this year was the only one I've seen that did not use a single infobox for highway articles. As for the Highway system section, that's standard to link to lists/articles on the systems in place for each country or state. That section also enables browsing from one number to the next in a geographic region. This template is already used on approximately 14,600 highway articles. Australia and the UK are the last two countries not using it, and the UK is converting after a few tweaks are made to support a few roadway types and to customize two pieces of wording for WP:ENGVAR reasons. Once again, I have commented on your concerns. Consensus is not unanimous, and you're the lone objector. Over a week went by without further comments before I asked for last comments. Most deletion processes on Wikipedia run for a week, meaning that plenty of time had elapsed, and I was well within my rights to ask for last comments before proceeding. On that note, when I clear a little time in my schedule, I believe I can move forward with the proposal. Imzadi 1979 → 11:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is the location of the route logo/images which are in the header, it would be best that they be moved into the Route information of the infobox and the header text (Highway Name) needs to be a little bigger, if they can be sorted then you will have my weak support. Bidgee (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Rschen7754 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The router markers are just as much a part of the name and identity of a roadway as the text name itself. That's why they are display up top with the text name. Once again, the text size of the header is the standard size from {{infobox}}, the wiki-wide metatemplate for creating infoboxes. If you want the text size increased, please propose that at Template talk:Infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 20:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Route markers don't have the significance in Australia that they seem to have in the US. Generally, (there are some exceptions) the name is more important. Looking at both layouts side by side I have to side with Bidgee here. I think IAR's layout is more suited to Australian roads. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The only exceptions are the motorways in Sydney which tend to be referred to by route number. But almost every other road in Australia is called by its actual name, and many people wouldn't even be aware of the route designation. Also you get weird ones like the Roe Highway and Great Eastern Highway in WA which at times carry one route, at other times up to three at one time, and for short distances none at all. Orderinchaos 04:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As a preliminary measure, could you convert Roe Highway and M2 Hills Motorway ASAP so we can see how a complex move works? If that works as planned I for one am happy to support a full conversion. Orderinchaos 07:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally motorways and some freeways in Sydney use the route number but outside Sydney the Hume Highway/Freeway is known as that and not route/National 31, also the same goes for the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory which also shares route/National 1 (for a short distance) with other highways in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Converted the former. The latter was converted already a while ago. Imzadi 1979 → 07:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Are these changes going to be made by bot or manually? The reason I'm asking is because of this edit, which somehow lost the equal sign after "length_km". Obviously, minimal (ie zero) conversion errors is desirable because it affects 373 roads. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not an automated process, and yes, some human error will peek in once in a while. That's unfortunate, but a nature of the beast. I'm literally manually renaming parameter names, inserting parameters and reconfiguring them. I do preview before saving, but some small errors will happen, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with those two - thanks for that. Orderinchaos 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Can we get a sandbox and testcases to show exactly what the changes are, here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've added two test cases and an evaluation at Template:Infobox Australian road/sandbox. Anyone else wants to have a go at evaluating, or adding more exemplars, is welcome (if you need my help to add the exemplars just ask). Orderinchaos 22:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The links at the bottom are totally, 100% customizable through {{infobox road/browselinks/AUS}}, even to the state level. Just specify |country=AUS |state=X where X is the state's abbreviation. That's already been set up. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • For an example of how the US coded theirs, see Template:Infobox road/browselinks/USA - there each state has their own set of links. --Rschen7754 00:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've moved that page to /testcases and user userspace draft to /sandbox; hope you don't mind. There's also a sideb-by-side comparison now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No probs at all - it's good to see them side by side (I couldn't figure out how to do that). Orderinchaos 12:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm still uncomfortable with the images at the top as they're distracting. This seems to be non-standard among infoboxes. Most have a name as the first entry. There are some exceptions, like Infobox ship but a complete lack of name isn't as bad as putting the name under the shields/route markers. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't use {{infobox ship}} as an example of anything except how not to do infoboxes. The ideal place for the name is at the top of the infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Following WOSlinker's edits

WOSlinker has addressed the majority of the concerns presented (header size and highway name placement) and the links are customizable. If that's the version that is implemented for AUS then are editors okay with the conversions? --Rschen7754 01:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when was this "a majority of concerns"? These were both afterthoughts from my point of view. You don't get around it that easy, sorry. Orderinchaos 04:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations of bad faith aren't helping. What are your remaining concerns relating to the conversion to Infobox road? --Rschen7754 05:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I detailed them at Template:Infobox_Australian_road/testcases#Orderinchaos. We had a discussion about the first, and main, point both here and at the TfD earlier regarding route allocations. As far as I am concerned that point is non-negotiable - either that is changed on Infobox road, or we don't go with Infobox road. Orderinchaos 06:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But then you (or somebody else) said that you didn't like how IAR did allocations. Then... how do you want to do it? --Rschen7754 06:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that was an entirely unrelated point about route shield graffiti in the mid-section, which is manual coding anyway and unrelated to the allocations. If you look at say Bruce Highway or the testcases you can see some functioning allocation sections. Orderinchaos 07:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, you have yet to take us up on the offer to customize the links at the bottom of the template. It's unethical to keep using this as an example of how we aren't working with you when you won't help us fix that. --Rschen7754 06:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're talking to someone who's a full-time student and active in three non-profit organisations (all three of which are doing something critical next week) all while caring for a disabled parent, and you chose the timing, not me. Issuing demands and bullying anyone who doesn't give in when you come knocking is what is unethical. Also, you haven't given me any idea or instructions as to *how* to "customise the links". Orderinchaos 07:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You being collective, not you personally. Yes we have, look a few paragraphs up. But to repeat the instructions - you go to {{infobox road/browselinks/AUS}} - which generates {{infobox road/browselinks/AUS}} currently - and you edit the links. An example of how the US does it is at {{infobox road/browselinks/USA}} if you want to see how to customize it by state. Or, if you have issues with template coding, I'm sure that you could give us the links that you want broken down by state and either WOSlinker or Imzadi1979 or I could code it for you. --Rschen7754 15:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added an Allocation option in the Route Information seciton. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good - can we lock it down to country=AUS only? I, for one, can't think of any other country that uses allocation (I've never even heard of the term used like this outside Australia). --Rschen7754 15:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates in infobox

I've just restored my addition of coordinates to this infobox. It was reverted, with the edit summary "one thing the aussies don't like is people messing with their infobox without consensus". May I remind editors not already familiar with the policy, of WP:OWN? WP:DRNC also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to get consensus before you make a change like that. Also, the article Olympic Highway that you used coordinates= for is 318 km. It is original research to arbitrarily pick one point out of those 318 km to geotag. --Rschen7754 21:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please point to a policy requiring me to obtain prior consensus. If you have an issue with my edit to Olympic Highway, raise it on the article's talk page, not here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss such a thing here; we do it all the time at WT:USRD. Nobody has all of the road pages watchlisted. Also, templates are not for experimentation; generally, you want to get consensus before you edit WP:HRT. P.S. DNRNC is an essay. --Rschen7754 21:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And a very fine essay it is, too. You're an admin; you shouldn't need things like that, and the above policies, pointing out to you. I'm not really interested in what happens at WT:USRD, which has no remit here; in any case, that's a project page, this is not. And who was experimenting? I note you cite no policy requiring me to obtain prior consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not fundamentally against the change but given the length of some roads which this infobox references (there's at least two I'm aware of which are over 3000km!), I'm not sure that I get the purpose of it. It could well be useful, though, on the street / metro road articles where it wouldn't be hard to pick a mid-point or representative point. Orderinchaos 09:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's an optional parameter, so doesn't have to be used. However, where there are coordinates in the article already (as was the case with Olympic Highway), they should be in the infobox, as are coordinates in most other infoboxes about geographical subjects. It ensures consistency, and includes them in the emitted metadata, which is used, among others, by Google Maps/Earth and Bing. The argument for giving coordinates for the mid-point of longer roads, is that the {{Coord}} template has a diameter parameter, |Dim=, which specifies the size of the bounding maps (or satellite views, etc.) linked to, so that they include the full length of the road. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Outback Track

Just wondering, is there a need for {{Infobox Outback Track}} or could it be replaced with this template? -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that it has been merged in now. Just wondering if it's worth restricting fuel & facilities options so that they only show up if type=track? -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That would seem to be a good idea. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've done that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Former Names

See infobox on Princes Highway, Melbourne. Former names of the road are listed in the photo caption. Would be nice to keep this info, but it doesn't belong there. Perhaps add a new field to satisfy this ??--WalkingMelbourne (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox road}} has an |alternate_name= parameter that lists an alternate name below the current/primary name in the infobox. Maybe an analog of that is the solution here? Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, although this just seems to be old route numbers rather than a name change? Orderinchaos 08:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Traffic Volume

Traffic volume would be a useful statistic (in standard metric vehicles per day) to get a feel for how busy the road is. Australian government bodies regularly conduct vehicle counts so this data is available for many major roadways. --Biatch (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

Evad37 (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Length parameter - rounding and conversion

The template currently allows entry of a length in km, which it divides by 1.609344 and rounds, to give a length in miles.

1. If the road is short (less than 800m), eg Mouat Street, it displays a length of "0", whereas rounding to one decimal place would be more appropriate.
2. The template should probably use {{convert}} to do the conversion - which might then resolve the rounding problem. Although some testing with parameters may be required, and/or it might be appropriate to let the editor specify sigfig in {{Infobox Australian road}} and then pass it through to {{convert}}.

(I'm no expert with templates, so I'm not going to even try to fix this myself.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the proposed conversion to {{infobox road}} would fix this issue, as that template has a parameter to control rounding - Evad37 (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

And so now does this template. |length_rnd= has been added and documented and Mouat Street has been fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

{{infobox road}}} also has parameters to reference the distance (eg. Google Maps, EIS, published map, etc.), and to add notes for the length (eg. The road will be 22.6km long after stage 2 construction is complete. The road will be 50km shorter after the completion of proposed bypasses. etc.) - Nbound (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox code upgrade

See also: Template talk:Infobox Australian place § Infobox conversion, and Template:Infobox Australian road/testcases

As I indicated at {{Infobox Australian place}} I've been involved in some discussions where it was implied that older infoboxes like this may not be supported after implementation of Lua. The code for {{Infobox Australian place}} (IAP) has subsequently been upgraded and has been instrumental in identifying deficiencies and errors in well over 1,000 articles. Both IAP and this infobox are very closely related, with parallel development and much of the same code being used. Now that the conversion of IAP has been completed successfully, it stands to reason that this template's code be updated too. As with IAP, the aim is to update the code to use the Wikipedia standard {{Infobox}} and that code has been written. There is an RfC (mentioned above) but while related, it has no direct bearing on the upgrade. Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, it has been emphasised more than once that this template should be retained for some time after any conversion to {{Infobox road}}.[1][2] At the RfC I specifically asked how long migration is expected to take,[3] and the answer was "a few weeks (3-6 perhaps)".[4] Assuming a best case scenario that migration could be achieved in that time, and with more than weeks still to go in the RfC, it's now at least 8 weeks before migration of the more than 500 articles transcluding this template will be complete. There are currently 496 transclusions and with an average addition of 1-2 articles a day the total is going to be around 600 articles, or around 14 a day that will need to be converted. Beyond that this template template has an indeterminate life, so there's no real reason why the code should not be modernised now.

The updated code is, parameter wise, 100% backward compatible with the existing version of the template, but I have made some minor changes from the current version:

1. The infobox image is now 270px, up from 200px. This is a fairly standard size for infobox images but there are cases where such a wide image may be undesirable, in which case |photosize=, a new parameter, will allow the size to be set manually.
2. The location map image, set by |location= has been moved to the top of the infobox. Again, this is a standard location for such an image.
3. In concert with the move of the location map image, |coorinates= has been moved so as to remain under the location map image.

While evaluating {{Infobox road}} I started modifying the code that I'd already written and this is now part of the new infobox code as a series of enhancements. In the event that the decision of the RfC is not to migrate to Infobox road, these enhancements will prove useful. If the migration does go ahead, this Infobox will still be retained as a backup in the event that Infobox road is not suitable for a particular road, so some consistency between the templates makes good sense. In any case, the enhancements will allow interested editors to start making changes to articles now, without having to wait for the migration. It will also be possible to correct existing mistakes (such as the current practice of mis-using |caption= for former route information). These enhancements are, in no particular order:

1. fixed formatting of |length= so that 1111km now displays as 1,111km
2. new parameter - |length_rnd= to avoid problems such as that seen in Mouat Street showing up as "0.3 km (0 mi)". This was mentioned at the RfC and specifically requested above so it's already in the code.
3. added code to cater for Jervis Bay Territory, which was missing from both {{Infobox Australian place}} and {{Infobox Australian road}} I don't think we have any road articles for JBT, but it should be included.
4. new parameter - |road_name2= for alternate road name
5. new parameter - |state2= When a road passes through more than one state, the "from" and "to" states can now be specified.
6. new parameter - |former= for former route information - Many articles currently use caption for this information
7. new parameter - |maintained= for maintenance agency (similar to Infobox road)
8. new parameter - |closed= for use when a road is permanently closed (an idea from the RfC)
9. new parameters, alt text for existing image parameters - |photo_alt= and |location_alt=
10. added locator map functionality, lifted from {{Infobox Australian place}} and modified slightly - primarily to be used for streets, or any road that doesn't have a "location" image. (see File:Location Hume Hwy.svg for an example of a location image) The map supports two pushpins, one for each end of the road.
11. As per {{Infobox Australian place}}, if the locator map exists it is not necessary to manually specify |coordinates=, as these will be generated from the locator map coordinates. However, also as per Infobox Australian place, specifying coordinates manually will not cause an error, they just won't be displayed.
12. new parameter - |length_ref= reference for road length. Mentioned as lacking at the RfC and above.
13. new parameters - |direction_a= and |direction_b= (from Infobox road), use of these overrides existing |direction=, which is deprecated with the addition of these parameters
14. new parameters - |end_a= and |end_b= (from Infobox road) deprecate |start= and |finish= respectively
15. new parameter - |lga= as discussed at WP:AURD. Unlike IR, label links to correct LGA article based on |state=
16. new parameter - |show_links= causes "Highway system" links to be shown at the bottom of the infobox. Should only be set when type = "highway", "city highway" or "freeway", not if type = "road", "rural road", "street" or "track"
17. new parameter - |tourist= for tourist routes that follow the road
18. new parameter - |history= for brief notes about significant points in the road's history
19. new parameter - |restrictions= for brief notes about general restrictions on the road
20. new parameters - (see instructions and blank infobox for a list) - enables split roads (Infobox road doesn't do this properly). See the Highway 1 and Capital Circle testcases for examples.
21. new parameters - |kml= and |kml_map= enable display of route maps using Google and Bing maps.

The new code is in the sandbox, with documentation at Template:Infobox Australian road/sandbox/doc. Testcases are at Template:Infobox Australian road/testcases and include colour schemes, a comparison of the old and new infoboxes with all parameters, a series of testcases that I've put together, as well as testcases taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/Infobox testcases. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mouat Street
Type	Street

I've just added new functionality, the ability to use KML files for route maps, in a similar fashion to {{Attached KML}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

KML functionality

This KML functionality (amongst some of the other improvements) is possibly a decision changer for me :). Would it be possible to further enhance the KML functionality to an open source mapping site like OpenStreetMap or similar (they are usually updated faster aswell). Just a thought, there is nothing wrong with the existing two. -- Nbound (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There probably is, but I was just taking the lead of {{Attached KML}}. There's really no reason that you couldn't add any mapping site, it's just a matter of getting the syntax right. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I've been reading, OpenStreetMap doesn't support KML files. Shame. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It does in a fashion, but yeah I gave up on it a little earlier too. -- Nbound (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the separate KML template is a uniform template across all geography-related articles, not just those about roads. With the display=title option, links are already in place where the coordinates would generally go. It also seems that the embedded JS-based map at the top of articles such as California State Route 56 is not included at all. So by including it in IAR, you're including a less functional implementation of KML. --Rschen7754 02:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The default for {{Attached KML}} is |display=inline, so that's what I was going for, since coordinates are normally displayed in the title bar. Most geography article infoboxes suggest |display=inline,title. Many infoboxes seem to be generating it automatically now. Most don't need kml data, just a spot coordinate. I have found that it's possible to include the map, so I've done that but, if links are really needed in the title bar then {{Attached KML}} can be used in lieu of |kml=yes. It's really up to the editors of individual articles. Personally, I don't see why we need links both in a box and in the title bar, or coordinates in both the infobox and title bar, but the latter seems to be the general Wikipedia preference. The problem that Australian editors have with {{Attached KML}} is that there are a gazillion U.S. files and only a few Aussie ones, and they're mixed in amongst the U.S. files, so we don't really know what we have and what we don't. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the US we don't really know what we have either, using that method - we know what we have, but we have no idea of what we don't have. A better solution would be using the talk page banner to track what's needed. The eventual goal is to move it all to Wikidata, anyway, so this is a temporary solution. --Rschen7754 05:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Getting it to Wikidata would be great. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the intention of including KML in the infobox to replace the {{Attached KML}} template, or to be in addition to it? For that matter, if an article has {{Attached KML|display=inline,title}} (the case for all articles I have created a KML file for), is duplicating the titlebar display from directly above the infobox necessary? - Evad37 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The intention is to avoid having to add {{Attached KML}} separately, unless necessary. One of the big problems I see with that template is that it is being added to the bottom of the article, so it's often not seen, and the links are important. They really should be in the infobox instead of the title bar, as that's where coordinate data is supposed to be. It's up to individual editors to decide which is more appropriate for that article, |kml=yes or {{Attached KML}}, and that really depends on what map information is available (map image, loactor map, coordinates etc). Not all of the articles have the same data available, so we need some flexibility, which is why I'm not forcing one parameter over another at this point. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your rationale sounds good to me, There have been pages Ive read in full more than once before noticing the KML box hidden in one place or another. -- Nbound (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with any notion that kml shouldn't be in the title bar. That position is pretty much standard for articles using coordinate data - the only advice on use of coords in the title I could find is at Template:Coord#Usage, which states "the title attribute indicates that the coordinates apply to the entire article, and not just one of (perhaps many) places mentioned in it — so it should only be omitted in the latter case." Another advantage of the title display is that the KML route can be viewed onwiki using WikiMiniAtlas, rather than being forced to use Google or Bing. And if the infobox version is going to replace the Attached KML box, then it should also have the KML file and (edit) links.

So at this stage, I don't think the infobox version is ready to be used on its own, but I can understand where you're coming from - Evad37 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The title bar is pretty much standard for coordinates, but not links and maps. Those sorts of things are usually left to the prose section or the infobox. I don't really have anything against them being there but if you have a set of links in the infobox, why do you need them in the title bar, only a couple of cm above where they are in the infobox? Other than built infrastructure, such as buildings, bridges, dams etc, most geographical objects are large enough that multiple coordinate figures could be used. LGAs are often 60km or more across, but we always pick a notable point for coordinates, even though the coordinates don't "apply to the entire article" but do apply to "one of (perhaps many) places mentioned in it". The coordinates for Sydney are for Circular Quay, even though the Sydney article covers an area of 12,144.6 km². Roads are really no different, their notable coordinates are generally those of the ends of the road. If you read above you'll see that I was able to include the mini atlas, but there's no need to duplicate the links, not that it can't be done. It just seems redundant to do so. As for the KML file and edit links, it's common to have view, talk page, and edit links in navboxes, but it's a rarity in infoboxes, even though {{Infobox}} makes provision for it. These boxes are for our readers, not for editors, so there's no need for edit links --AussieLegend (✉) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This was extensively discussed in a quite acrimonious RFC (which can be found in the WT:HWY archives), and the consensus was to use KML for roads. Coordinates cannot represent a road effectively (why the terminii? why not any other point on the road?) However, this has farmed out to some rail lines as well as postal codes, if you look through the KMLs that have already been done. --Rschen7754 09:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Why the endpoints? Because they're the most obvious points on the road and every road has them. Sure you could use 47 Smith Street, but not every street has a 47 and not every 47 is in the same place on the road. I'm not saying we shouldn't use KML but if we don't have KML files and we don't have location map drawings, we have to use something. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

KML files are pretty easy to make - Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maps task force/Tutorial has a tutorial on how to make them with Google Earth. --Rschen7754 09:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a mini-heirarchy of map types could be used. We could use the location markers if no route map exists. If a route map does exist then the marker map would be redundant and removed (in other words: the aim for each box would be an appropriate route map rather than location map). KML could be independent of either, if it exists - its added, regardless of what kind of inbuilt map the infobox uses. -- Nbound (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that making KML files is easy, more so for some. My GPS mapping software exports kml files - drive somewhere, save the track file as a kml and copy to a page, easy peasy. This issue is one of practicality. Of the 498 pages transcluding this page only 38 use {{Attached KML}}. That means we're missing over 92% of our articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Harryboyles, there have been another 20 or so KML files attached (using {{Attached KML}}) to Australian road articles, mainly in Canberra, but also in Sydney. Not a bad effort :) -- Nbound (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a link to the KML file, but for appearance and usability issues it's under the Google and Bing links, rather than above as it is in {{Attached KML}}. I haven't added an edit link, for the reasons explained above. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update: As of now, KML functionality is similar to that of {{Attched KML}}. The Google and Bing links are not shown in the title bar as it seems redundant still, with the same links only a few cm below in the infobox, unlike {{Attched KML}}, where the links are right at the bottom of the article. The mini-atlas is in the title bar. In the infobox, the link to the KML file is under the map links for aesthetic reasons only. There is no edit link for thereasons that I've explained. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: KML functionality was removed with this edit, primarily because of a dispute at Template talk:Attached KML. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Roadway types/colour

A minor suggestion, but would it be possible to harmonise some of the colouration schemes with infobox road, to save on confusion. It would also be a chance to add the remaining road types. Under construction = orange. Closed = grey. and Tourist routes, which could use the generic tourist drive shield colour used in most states. These would have to override the road types designated elsewhere in the template to allow settlements/suburbs/etc. to be named correctly. This would mean a new colour will need to be found for track... perhaps white? And of course the rest of the roadtype colours would remain untouched. -- Nbound (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The colours can really be anything we want. The colours are from the current version and the track colour is a carry-over from {{Infobox Outback Track}}, I assume representing the colour of most of those tracks. List the colours you'd like to see here and I'll try them out - The code is flexible at the moment. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically:
Colour override switches:

• Under Construction - Orange (roughly same as IR)
• Closed - Grey (roughly same as IR)
• Tourist - Australian tourist shield colour (brown) (eg. <shield removed>) Edit: realised that shield may not be the right colour, the colour proposed would is the one specified for tourist shields in AS1743 or at least used in the majority of states- Nbound (talk)

Roadway types:

• Track - Any suitable colour, we could go with a dirt road light brown for example, if we wish to keep the colour link.
• Freeway - Blue (as-is)
• Highway - Green (as-is)
• Anything else - doesnt matter too much to me, current examples look ok
• We did discuss over at WP:AURD making the default (no type specified) the same colours as the directional signage on roads (white on green). - doesnt matter too much to me, but would place a soft support behind it.

I use "roughly" as the exact colours may, or may not, look good, and a more neutral tone of the same colour could be better. In each case where not otherwise specified the text on top of said colour would be either white or black (whatever looks best). Thoughts? Nbound (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be good if we could use the colours specified in the Australian Standard AS 1743-2001 Road signs - Specifications:

• Red — Colour R13 Signal Red

  #BA312B

• Yellow — Colour Y15 Sunflower

  #FFA709

• Brown — Colour X65 Dark Brown

  #4F372D

• Blue — Colour B23 Bright Blue

  #174F90

• Standard Green — Colour G12 Holly Green

  #336745

• Green — Colour G13 Emerald

  #195F35

(rgb/html values from Wattyl's website)

Some other points to consider:

• There are different ways that colours could be used, it doesn't just have to be by-type - there could just be a single colour for all roads, or colours could be based on shield colours. However, it is easiest to implement based on the existing type parameter.
• Colour shouldn't be the only means used to convey information - perhaps a roadway type field could be displayed in the infobox
• We need to make sure any use of colour meets WP:COLOUR requirements (eg can't having yellow text on green background, due to contrast requirement) - Evad37 (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

By necessity colours have to be somewhat muted to ensure they don't clash with the colour of labels and headers. It's a never-ending battle in television articles finding unique colours for each season that aren't too garish or too dark. Road signs are meant to catch your eye, infobox headers are just meant to delineate between one section and another. To be honest, I'm not a fan of any of the above colours except for sunflower (maybe). By the time they're toned down enough to be suitable for a header, they'll be a shadow of their former selves. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the above colours are not overly accurate. AS 1743-2001 Road signs - Specifications uses CIE 1976 (L*a*b), something that can't be recreated accurately in RGB. Bidgee (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on this, but have had some problem finding colours that look good in the headers and still provide proper contrast. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Even the ones from IR? It is true that there is more colourised space in this template though, so any potential harmonisation may not work out that well. If you haven't already... perhaps try a more neutral/darker tone of the same colour? -- Nbound (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I was speaking more of the colours suggested by Evad37 from AS 1743-2001. I thought I'd give those a shot first. The "more colourised space" you mention is a carry-over from Infobox Australian place, which doesn't have headers. In this infobox I can probably stick with the default, although I haven't removed the label colouring yet, so I've been concentrating on how the headers look. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update: Roadway types - "under construction" and "closed" have been added. Colours for all roads are as per Template:Infobox road/doc/type, with the exception of "closed", which is not specified there. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work, by closed i meant former/decommisioned. - Nbound (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about the actual colours used, the above was just a suggestion that it could be based something used in real life (or a close equivalent - as Bidgee noted, AS1743 does not define colours in terms of rgb, which I obtained from Watyll's website, per my note). Also, we haven't really addressed the issue of colour being used as the only means to convey the road type information. (ie, not everyhting with |type=highway or city highway is named "... Highway", and some roads named as a highway are actually tracks, etc., so the actuall road name doesn't always convey that information) - Evad37 (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Early on in the infobox road discussions at WP:AURD i suggested a roadway type parameter, for us here this would allow there to be two methods of showing the type of road rather than rely on colour alone. It would also be useful for the ACT where roads have weird names and arent shielded. (eg. Adelaide Avenue, Capital Circle, Yarra Glen, Caswell Drive and Tuggeranong Parkway, are all freeway grade roads). It would also mean that we will need to come up with a method of stating the roadway types, that relies on what is clearly visible on sources like google maps and streetview, lest it be considered WP:OR. (eg. Roads which are majority "controlled-access dual carriageway" could equal the freeway colouration. Specifics could be defined further if others like my idea.). The only other non-WP:OR option is to colourise according to shield/allocation type IMO. -- Nbound (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

When rebuilding this infobox, which was originally built from {{Infobox Australian place}}, I took some guidance from that template, where we've never visually presented the "place" type in the infobox. There is a similar problem there regarding "locality" and "suburb" that even official sources can't resolve. A locality is actually the same as a suburb, the only difference being that a locality has a "rural character" and suburb has an "urban character". However, places like Bobs Farm, which has a rural character and is therefore a locality, is officially recognised as a suburb. There is a lot of OR in Australian geographical designations, such as the definition of a city (Newcastle is a good example, even Sydney includes some OR). If there are official definitions for these, we can always put this in the "Notes" section of the documentation. That can then be referred to if there is a conflict. I've added a field that displays the type (road_name has to be specified for it to be seen) and we can link that to an appropriate article, external official definition or even the template documentation. The colour for "closed" is now per the Template:Infobox road/doc/type specification for "former/decommisioned". --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess we will have to use commonsense (as previously) to dictate roadtype choice. It would probably be worth adding synonymous terms to the freeway type setting, such as Motorway, Expressway, and Parkway; for editor choice of what particular term would be displayed. Some of these terms carry nuances in some states that they do not in others. (Some people consider Freeways necessarily untolled, NSW doesnt), (Parkway in the ACT means freeway-grade, doesnt carry same connotations elsewhere), (The preferred term for freeway-grade roads in Adelaide appears to be Expressway)... and so on. I would guess that the other terms for the lower grade roads would be less controversial. And I would suggest that any road carrying the Highway name (eg. Gunbarrel Highway) that is unsealed be called a track for the purposes of the infobox. -- Nbound (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• What does everyone think about retaining the current infobox's label colour (#f0f0ff) for the labels in the left column, instead of taking the same colours as the headings? A light, neutral colour makes the infoboxes less "loud", especially for the under construction, closed, and undefined colours.
• I think better colours can be found for undefined road types - maybe the same or a similar light purple? - Evad37 (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The label colouring is a carry-over from Infobox Australian place. There were issues there, as there were with Infobox road, that the header colour wasn't as obvious as the old template, so labels were coloured as well to compensate. Infobox Australian place doesn't use headers, so the colouring is beneficial but here, with headers, it isn't really needed at all, although changing it to a light colour is do-able. The undefined colour was grey, per the current template, but was changed to match Infobox road. Realistically, should a road type ever be undefined? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There shouldnt be, if the docs are followed - but there will be some that are, where people dont realise there are specific terms you need to write in the "type" section. -- Nbound (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Allocation

Will we also be moving the allocation method proposed in the RfC I was formerly part of? Articles like Highway 1 would still benefit from having the image variations at the top. Tourist drives would also benefit from a single shield, if the article was specifically about that tourist drive. (tourist drive concurrencies could then be mentioned in the tourist section). I realise they have all been coded in for legacy reasons at this stage. This may be a discussion worth having elsewhere, such as on WP:AURD, but just getting the feelers out. I think the new allocation method allows a more accurate portrayal of the shields in use. -- Nbound (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem but yes, AURD is probably the place to discuss it. As for the RfC, just don't say things like "we'll see what x says", just say "we'll see what others say" and all will be fine. :) --AussieLegend (✉) 04:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Was not my intent to exlcude previously. I wont be returning to the Infobox Road RfC, as while i was strongly in favour (for most of it^{^}), the templates are a bit more competitive now in my mind, and I want to avoid any WP:COI, that could be claimed if I vote against it. Your suggestion regarding the perceived tone of the comments is noted, and I will try not to make similar mistakes :).

^{^} this wasnt always the case I was worried about US oversight on proposed template edits, early on

Nbound (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update: Nothing done per discussion above. Have left this for a discussion at AURD. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Im yet to hear any complaints in regards to the basic allocation usage (other than a few editors not familiar with the term "allocation"), in other words the addition of WP:ACCESS notes. Discussion doesnt seem warranted for it at this stage.

I will start a discussion at WP:AURD revisiting the idea of dropping shield usage at the top of the IAusR infobox over the next few hours/days though. (Unless someone else beats me to it) -- Nbound (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion started: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#Dropping_shield_images_at_the_top_on_the_.22new.22_IAusR -- Nbound (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate any comments at the discussion from those here... as much as Evad and I love to agree with each other ;) -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Gazettal

Bidgee mentioned an idea over at the Infobox Road conversion RfC which could give us another and often more accurate way of entering establishment date. Using the Gazettal date. The gazettal date is the date the road was published in the state government gazette of the the state in question. This can be found directly by accessing gazette archives, or by other means, such as here in the ACT, where they can be seen by using the ACT Planning and Land Authority's place name seach. Roads which are now defunct or closed could be mentioned in the history section as exact wording would depend on how the road was closed or superseded. People should be aware that this date isnt necessarily the date the road was opened to the public, nor the date at which construction was completed. The method is not foolproof as some roads may have been regazetted for one reason or another, for example Majura Road is listed in the place name search as being gazetted in 2010, when in fact it has existed in various forms for over a century and actually predates the ACT. Trove has digitised newspapers mentioning the Majura Road as far back as the 1880s and 90s -- Nbound (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Including gazettal is not an issue. {{Infobox Australian place}} has the parameter available but it's rarely used. The only reason why it's not in the new code is because it wasn't in the old code, and wasn't one of the enhancements. There's no reason why it can't be included. The only issue is that gazettal doesn't always match the actual dates hat things happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely true, though it could help articles that have vague establishment dates like "1930s". Where its gazettal date is 20 September 1928. If the date the road is opened is known exactly (say via a digitised newspaper) this could still be used in addtion to any mentioned gazettal date. If the exact date is not known (and referenced) to at least a single 12 month period (or something that can be considered reasonably close), the gazettal date could be more the more important figure in some circumstances. Or in otherwords, some commonsense is always going to be required in regards to its usage. - Nbound (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's not much I can say to that, other than "I agree". We should probably have a reference field too. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference field sounds good to me. :) -- Nbound (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Update: |gazetted= and |gazetted_ref= have been added. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Route marker size

The current code forces the route markers/shields to have a size of 60px (width). This results in poor presentation for roads which have both extra-wide alphanumeric markers and standard width markers, eg Eyre Highway. This could be fixed by setting the images to be the same height, eg x60px (or whatever height works best). (Another option would be to allow the overiding of the default size, but the downside of this option is that it makes the template more complex, requiring more parameters). - Evad37 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Much like what we found with {{AUshield}}, setting by height has some disadvantages too, though the rows are neater:

• 60px =
• x60px =
• AUshield hardcoded sizing =

Nbound (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also a pending but currently dormant change to the TAS/VIC/SA/QLD alphanumeric images at WP:AURD that plans to remove the gap between the letter and numbers (as per actual signage), which could help a bit. Though it hasnt been touched in a fair while and there is alot of work involved and we are still waiting on SA's DPTI to clarify the status and existence of D-series roadways. -- Nbound (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is caused by the aspect ratio of the images, not the width. If you select the same height, then some images, like M80, look far too wide. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, essentially its something we are going to have to deal with if we do keep widespread use of the route image sections. This problem would be effectively bypassed if we do decide to follow the new allocation proposal. Another option could be to allow the input to take standard code, and then we could use AUshield to keep everything pretty, switched by code eg.((AUshield|R|23|R|ALT23|N|A1|M|80|usage=header)) with usage=header [or similar] switching the hardcoded sizing to a new set of sizes we could use just for the infoboxes (so we could then size them by hand and reduce the aspect problems) - Nbound (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, all shields should be the same aspect ratio, even if that means some transparent padding at the top and bottom of files. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It could be done, but it would have to be done in a way so as not to affect the standard output shielding (as some shields will have significant padding). usage=header could switch to a second set of images which have been padded out, this padding would need to be both as wide as the widest shield, and a tall as the tallest for the best results. [Im using those terms loosely as the images are most SVGs] -- Nbound (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Super Friends Freeway New South Wales
Type	Freeway
Highway system
Highways in Australia National Highway • Freeways in Australia Highways in New South Wales

• Update: These are still at 60px for the reasons explained above. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this helps, but {{AUshield}} can be used instead of a filename in the route_imagex fields in the new code. In the meantime, I have temporarily reduced the default size from 60px to 40px. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise that the new code allowed full image syntax / {{AUshield}}. That's great, because it means sizes can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis if the default size doesn't produce good results. - Evad37 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats a handy change -- Nbound (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's always been part of the new code. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Compared to the old IAusR :P -- Nbound (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Location Map

Is anyone able to update the map to show current state of Canberra's urban area. Compare image to left and here

I've asked the uploader for comments.[5] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ive also placed a small notice to check the commons talk page on his/her de.wiki talk page, this user appears to be more active there than on commons -- Nbound (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have updated this map to approximate OSM -- Nbound (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

More on the maps

{{Infobox Australian road/sandbox2 | type = highway | road_name = New England Highway | force_national_map = yes | latd_a = 26 | latm_a = 50 | lats_a = 21 | longd_a = 151 | longm_a = 38 | longs_a = 39 | pushpin_label_position_a = left | latd_b = 32 | latm_b = 45 | lats_b = 41.3 | longd_b = 151 | longm_b = 44 | longs_b = 38.6 | pushpin_label_position_b = left | direction_a = North | direction_b = South }} While I think the Location map is a great idea, not everyone knows how to create them. I haven't found anyone who knows or is willing to create loaction maps for Highways in Tasmania. For the sake of consistency I’m of the opinion it should be all or nothing for location maps. Wiki ian 07:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The location maps are really only meant to be there for roads that dont have any other map. The dot point at each end obviously removes the entire intervening route, and some routes such as loops are impossible to implement properly, its a stop gap. If you want to create your own map, use the "alternate_location_map" parameter and link to one of your own choosing. Its usually a relatively simple affair to export one from Open Street Map, and adjust colouration to highlight your desired route. -- Nbound (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) -- Retracted as talking about different map type

Is there some confusion here? Is Wiki ian talking about this type of map or the one to the right? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I was indeed talking about this type of map. Wiki ian 10:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Yes, they are more difficult to create but the template provides various options. Another option is to use KML files, which are a lot easier and, if all else fails the locator map can display the endpoints. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding issues - proceeding with the full upgrade

As of now, the following issues are outstanding:

• KML functionality

1. Edit link - In my opinion, including this in the infobox is undesirable, as it gives the casual reader an easy way to directly edit KML files. {{Infobox}} has the ability to provide a set of links, one of which allows readers to edit infobox code, using |name= but discourages its use for this very reason. The documentation for the new code includes an explanation of how KML files are used here and really, only experienced editors should be editing them anyway, so the need for an edit link in the infobox is marginal at best.
2. Map links in the title bar - As explained, use of the title bar is pretty much standard for coordinates, but not for links. The new code includes a link to the mini-atlas, but since the links in the infobox are typically only a few cm below the title bar, they're really redundant and the spirit of WP:REPEATLINK would seem to apply.

• Roadway types/colour

1. Label colouring - This was set to match the header colour, but I've temporarily set it to the same as the existing infobox for demonstration purposes. We can make it what we want.
2. Undefined road type colour - Per an early request, colours were harmonised with Infobox road, which used green and gold for undefined roads. Evad37 suggested a light purple and that is now the colour used. It's the same as the colour used for regions in Infobox Australian place.

• Allocation - This is really an issue for WP:AURD, and discussion is underway there.

None of the above are functionality issues, and don't prevent the new code replacing the old (well, the new old) code. Even issues like KML deal with enhanced functionality so I don't see any problems at this point. The one bug that did pop up with the "new old" code has been fixed in the sandbox. Thoughts on proceeding with the full upgrade? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The former and construction road types arent set as override types. The template would just display the default "major settlements" if used, it would be best if these were a 2nd option so you could set a road as a freeway type, and then change the colour by using these "overrides". -- Nbound (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Some Freeway Queensland
General information
Type	Freeway  (Under construction)
Length	1,914 km (1,189 mi)
Major junctions
Location(s)
Major suburbs / towns	Crows Nest, Toowoomba, Warwick, Tenterfield, Glen Innes, Armidale, Tamworth, Muswellbrook, Maitland
Highway system
Highways in Australia National Highway • Freeways in Australia Highways in Queensland

That is going to add some complexity to the code. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - Full support once "uc"/"former" problem fixed :) -- Nbound (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Or compromise by creating a well-placed "status" label that is only used (unless further discussions warrant more) for uc and former types --- Nbound (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How is this? Overrides and a status note next to the road type. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me... Still need some other labels for freeways but wont let that stop my support. -- Nbound (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... the label colours were changed back to being the same as the headings [6]. This is really the last issue for me before I would support the implementation. I actually agree with what you said above – "...here, with headers, it isn't really needed at all, although changing it to a light colour is do-able." I would support either removing the label background colour all together (as per infobox road), or changing it to the very light colour used in the old code, or a similarly light grey such as #eee, and I would consider other suggestions. How it is now just seems overdone and too loud. - Evad37 (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I change that for testing purposes and forgot to switch back. It's now back to the old blue. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Will now Support - Evad37 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

length_ref parameter

I am formally requesting that the |length_ref= parameter described above be implemented in the current live template, as was done for |length_rnd= (I am trying to get Mitchell Freeway to A-class and then hopefully FA, and the issue of reference placement has come up.) - Evad37 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --AussieLegend (✉) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick implementation - Evad37 (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Direction

Do/should we have a guideline for which direction a road should be listed as running? Eg do we prefer N-S over S-N (likewise E-W or W-E)? Should the direction follow the street numbers? But what if there aren't any (eg freeways, Roe Highway, etc)? If we it's anything other than arbitrary per-road, a brief guideline in the template documentation would be helpful. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

At the moment it is kind of arbitrary. Its been discussed previously [7] [8], but not extensively, with no real consensus on a consistent scheme to cover all (or most) roads. - Evad37 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have a slight preference for N->S and W->E if no other decision can be reached (and its decided that an arbitrary direction shouldnt be used). Purely because this follows the same flow as text and is therefore slightly easier to visualise. Not that its hard the other way! :D -- Nbound (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

When you have a road that is, for example, "Northeast-Southwest" the pushpins in the location map and the labels can be a bit long. "NE end" and "SW end" look better. As for the order, it really depends on the article. (See Talk:Sydney–Newcastle Freeway#Discussion.) --AussieLegend (✉) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and allows the more specific SSW, ESE, etc. if needed - Nbound (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Interim upgrade

While we're discussing the enhancements, and other issues, does anyone have any problems with me upgrading the present infobox to use the 100% backward compatible code based on {{Infobox}}? This will only modernise the existing code, visually it will look almost exactly the same and there will be none of the enhancements mentioned. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Nbound (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Evad37 (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The code has now been updated. Please report any issues here. Hopefully there won't be any. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Displaying the state breaks if the full state name is entered as plain text, eg at Pacific Motorway before I changed "Queensland" to "QLD". - Evad37 (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this was caused by a minor typo, but in fixing it I've also made the header look more like the previous version of the infobox by restoring the state to the same part of the header as the road name. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation of state abbreviations

Resolved

Note that "QLD" is not a acronym, so should not be all-caps. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be an acronym. Per the infobox instructions, it's simply a code for use by the template. For Queensland this code is either "qld" or "QLD". This is the same as used by {{Infobox Australian place}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that the template instructions are "wrong", in that they are not consistent with MOS:CAPS. Is there any reason why the code cannot follow normal capitalisation rules? To the human reader, those three letters are an abbreviation for the state, not a "code for the template", and ought to follow the same style as everything else. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What about WP:COMMONSENSE? The change you propose would result in either template instances breaking and no state being displayed, or numerous minor edits would be required (would probably require a bot to be built, or else someone spending an awful lot of time looking through each transclusion), all without changing a single thing for the readers of Wikipedia, and making the template just that little bit harder to use. - Evad37 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

These are postal abbreviations. See Interstate 95 for a multi-state US road - Would you suggest that every US article writes the entire state name? (Their isnt all that many well used non-caps abbreviations in the US either). It would seem to me that, WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Regardless, in good faith I have edited the template doc to specifically state we are using the postal abbreviations. -- Nbound (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS doesn't apply to code used in templates. The code is not displayed, it is used by the template simply to generate a correct link for the state. It is no different to using {{start date|2013|5|29|df=y}} instead of 29 May 2013. In reality, it doesn't matter whether you type "qld", "QLD", "qLd" or any other similar combination, the template converts this to "qld" and then generates [[Queensland]] from the code, with a similar process occurring for the other states. For consistency though, we specify the format as lowercase, which makes any future automated changes a lot easier. It's a bit of a storm in a teacup though, as the vast majority of road articles don't use |state=. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

OK - I didn't realise that the code wasn't actually displayed. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note As a result of this discussion, I've added a link to the new sandbox code that, once implemented, will point to the documentation for the template. This should make it easy for people unfamiliar with the template to better understand the parameters used. You can see it in the testcases. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Might be worth sticking some small wikicode on? -- Nbound (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --AussieLegend (✉) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)