Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Pacific Highway

How to cover the Pacific Highway and Motorway was raised as an issue at Talk:Pacific_Motorway_(Brisbane–Brunswick_Heads)#Requested_move_11_March_2017. I thought we could 'brainstorm' it here, since it involves multiple articles:

• Pacific Highway (Australia) currently covers the remaining sections of highway (four split sections in New South Wales) for the infobox and route description, but also covers the entire/historical Sydney–Brisbane route in the history section. The direction followed in the article (north–south or south–north) is inconsistent
• Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) covers the Queensland motorway, plus the NSW section that is gazetted as "Pacific Motorway", but not other upgraded sections of Pacific Highway which are motorway-standard or have the M1 route number.
• Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) is somewhat related, in that it is a replacement for the Hexham to Wahroonga section of Pacific Highway
• Central Coast Highway is somewhat related, in that the Kariong to Gosford section was previously part of the Pacific Highway
• Gold Coast Highway is somewhat related, in that it was formerly part of the Pacific Highway

That status quo may not be the best way of presenting information on these roads, per comments at the RM by Scott (To non-road-nerds, the "Pacific Highway" is the road from Sydney to Brisbane, and the "Pacific Highway upgrade" is making it better) and Kerry (I think the current distinction between the Motorway and the Highway doesn't reflect the way readers think about the situation.). What Scott suggested at the RM was it [Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads)] should be merged, cleaned up, then made a decent subsidiary of Pacific Highway (Australia).

We could however go further, and have Pacific Highway (Australia) as an overview article for the historical Sydney to Brisbane route plus the modern bypasses/upgrades. The other articles could then be considered sub-articles – possibly with a new article Pacific Highway (New South Wales) to cover the remaining extant sections of the highway. The sub-articles would expand on details (particularly route description and junctions) which would be summarised in the overview article. They sub-articles' history sections could also link to the overview article's history section for further details/context.

Pinging RM participants @AussieLegend, ScottDavis, and Kerry Raymond: for comments/discussion - Evad37 [talk] 05:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion, there isn't a gap because you are of the belief that the Hornsby - Beresfield and Hexham - Brisbane roads are not both part of the Pacific Highway, but for those that do, then it is a different story. Silverserv (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've moved your post out from the middle of Evad37s. When replying, please add replies after posts, not in the middle of someone's post. As for the gap, it is quite verifiable that the F3, John Renshaw Drive and the New England Highway are not part of the Pacific Highway. As far as I can see, nobody has said that the Hexham - Brunswick Heads section of the Pacific Highway is not part of the Pacific Highway. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The Pacific Motorway between Sydney and Newcastle is not now, nor has it ever been, part of the Pacific Highway. It's a completely separate road. It doesn't even connect to the Pacific Highway. In Sydney it comes close, but in Newcastle it's separated from the Pacific Highway by John Renshaw Drive and the New England Highway, all up about 5.5km. When the F3-Pacific Highway link is finished the motorway and the highway will connect at the northern end of the Raymond Terrace bypass, but the two roads will retain their separate identities. I spoke to RMS about this, as part of it involves closing a turnoff into my suburb, requiring a nearly 4km detour for anyone coming from the north. RMS said that the ultimate intention is to rename the entire route from Sydney to Brisbane "Pacific Motorway". Eventually, the only sections of the Pacific Highway that exist as the Pacific Highway will be from Raymond Terrace to Wahroonga. What this means for Wikipedia is that eventually we'll have one Pacific Motorway article likely based on today's Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) (by then probably called Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Raymond Terrace)) with the content from Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) reversed in direction and merged into that. Since the process of gazetting a name change is not a 5 minute job, they don't intend changing names as sections of the Pacific Highway are upgraded, which seems to be why the northern section of the road still officially ends at Brunswick Heads, even though some signposting has changed, apparently to get the public used to the name. The change from "F3" to "Pacific Motorway" was met with some resistance.

TLDR - as it stands now the articles are correctly named per WP:NCAURD but the Pacific Highway article does require some cleanup. That the general public may call the road the Pacific Highway is really irrelevant. A lot of people still refer to the Sydney–Newcastle Pacific Motorway as "the F3" or "the freeway" but we don't base articles on public perceptions. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Under WP:NAMINGCRITERIA it's not irrelevant. I quote:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

We are juggling these issues in the various conversations that arise around this set of articles. The fact we keep having these conversations means we haven't got it right yet. We can retain the existing articles with their titles but with the additional Pacific Highway (Australia) as Scott describes. We can use redirects/disambiguations for common names like "F3". We can agree how we structure the lede paras for all of this groups of articles so their relationships are made clear and the distinction of highway/motorway and gazetting status is explained. We can agree what "common names" should be mentioned in individual ledes as local names for that chunk of road. But we must treat them as a group of articles that stay consistent with one another, relationships clearly identified. Kerry (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)The direction followed in the article (north–south or south–north) is inconsistent - This is obviously an issue. As discussed in an RM for Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads), we normally name with the major destination first and the minor destination second. Ultimately, that means the Pacific Motorway article will be Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Brisbane) as Sydney is a lot larger than Brisbane. We should be making the Pacific Highway article consistent with this. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Under WP:NAMINGCRITERIA it's not irrelevant - Are you saying that our established naming convention is irrelevant and, if so, to which article do you refer? The article we're talking about here is the Pacific Highway and that article is most definitely named correctly. Changing to Pacific Highway (New South Wales) is unnecessary as there is only one Pacific Highway in Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that having a brainstorming discussion here is a good idea. I had also wondered whether the current splits at Brunswick Heads/Ballina and Newcastle/Hexham/Mayfield West are the right splits, or if they should actually be at 1930 and 1996.

My interpretation of the Pacific Motorway/Pacific Highway south of Newcastle is that the Motorway is essentially a 127km-long bypass of a whole bunch of minor towns and bridges, and the Highway is the "old road" which it replaced. I found at least one sign on Google Streetview that signposted it as "Old Pacific Highway". The Princes Highway in South Australia is similar. Parts of the "old road" are now named Southern Ports Highway and "Old Princes Highway" where new roads have been built or substantially upgraded. The top article talks about the coastal intercity route, and calls out to the subsidiary articles for sections that have relevant stand-alone articles. There has been no objection (yet?) to the article merges a few months ago into Western Highway (Victoria), Goulburn Valley Highway and Calder Highway of separate "freeway" articles for parts of their routes. If the entire road is upgraded and renamed from "Highway" to "Freeway"/"Motorway"/"Expressway", then it might be appropriate to rename the top-level article, but I think that to our readers, the "Pacific <mumble>way" is the main coast(-ish) road from Sydney to Brisbane. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Lets not get too hung up over article naming issues just at the moment. I started this discussion with the intention of discussing article scope, specifically:

(a) should there be an overview-style article, covering more than just the currently-gazetted sections of Pacific Highway? (and if so, what should the scope be?)

(b) iff there is consensus for (a), should there be a separate article to cover just the current sections of highway (in a greater level of detail than in the overview article)?

What happens or doesn't happen with names really depends on how these issues are resolved. (pinging project members to see if we can get some more comments: @Advanstra, Aunty Stick, Dave Rave, Dfadden, Gnangarra, HiLo48, Linkqer, Marcnut1996, Nbound, NMFCFan113, Orderinchaos, Rangasyd, JarrahTree, Wiki ian, and YuMaNuMa:) - Evad37 [talk] 07:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I like the model adopted for the Hume Highway article that embraces entire roadway from Sydney to Melbourne including the Hume Highway (in metropolitan Sydney), the Hume Motorway to the Victorian border and the Hume Freeway to outer metropolitan Melbourne. There is a seperate article on the Old Hume Highway. The direction fans out from Sydney to Melbourne. Conversely, the Princes Highway article provides an overview across three states, and then is supported by seperate articles for the Princes Freeway and the Old Princes Highway in Victoria and the Princes Motorway in New South Wales, fanning out from Sydney to Adelaide. I'm less a fan of this 'federated' model. Editors may also be aware that Highway 1 (Australia) exists together with Highway 1 articles for NSW, VIC, TAS, SA, WA, NT, and QLD that provide a national and state-by-state overview of the highways that carry the #1 shield. Rangasyd (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A few days with no new comments. I propose that the high-level goal is that Pacific Highway (Australia) should be written to cover the coastal highway from Sydney to Brisbane, currently described by Google Maps as "Via Pacific Hwy/A1 and M1", 920km with tolls and originally proclaimed as the Pacific Highway in 1931.

This goal is going to require a number of subordinate articles and/or links to other articles. It allows for a separate article for the newer Pacific Motorway that has bypassed the southern end. It can list (or link to a subordinate article for details) the various bypasses that have been built and sections that have or are proposed to be duplicated. I'm not sure if there's a need for a separate "new" or "old" road article at the northern end. Some of it might be in the Gold Coast Highway article.

I think it should be uniformly described as running from Sydney to Brisbane, but I'm open to the argument of putting north at the top of the lists, if someone wants to propose that north->south would be better. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Normal practice for describing roads is larger place to smaller place, so Sydney to Brisbane in this instance. Kerry (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree all should be integrated into one Pacific Highway (Australia) article to cover the road from North Sydney to Brisbane in the same manor as the Hume Highway article with an appropriate note about the Hexham gap. Having it split across three articles with one covering Section 1 and 3, another section 2 and another section 4 isn’t necessary and there is a fair bit of content forking. Silverserv (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What Hexham gap? The Pacific Highway is contiguous from Warabrook, several km east of Hexham, to where the northern Pacific Motorway starts at Brunswick Heads. The only gap at Hexham is between the northbound Hexham bridge and the Pacific Motorway which, as I've stated 3 times now, is not now nor has it ever been, part of the Pacific Highway. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The 5.5km section from Beresfield via John Renshaw Drive and the New England Highway you mentioned above. But won't apply if you don't recognise the dual carriageway from Wahroonga as part of the Pacific Highway. Silverserv (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not a gap though. They're two completely separate roads leading to a third road, none of which are part of the Pacific Highway. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Route distances

This week, I have converted the old-style junction lists to the current style on Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) (north-south, with exit numbers in Queensland that look like distances from Brisbane, but I don't know if they are) and Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) (south to north from Wahroonga (20 km from Sydney CBD) to Beresfield 20km NW of Newcastle), both without the distance columns filled in. I expect I have some info inaccurate as I converted from the old lists, without checking carefully which places were the locations of junctions and which ones were destinations accessed from those exits. The article Pacific Highway (Australia), Major intersections is subordinate to Pacific Highway (Australia) and lists the junctions north-south from Brunswick Heads to North Sydney (Waringah Freeway) with distances from 0 at the top to 790km at North Sydney. Before putting a lot of effort into filling the distances one exit at a time from Google Maps or Streetview, I'd like to know that it will only need doing once. That means having an agreed place for 0km (and direction). I think we have agreed that the intended end-state is for the roads in NSW at least to be numbered from 0 at the Sydney end, and if there is a single Sydney-Brisbane article, it would be numbered in that direction. I don't know whether 0km should be the CBD (south of the harbour bridge), North Sydney or Wahroonga, nor which route between Sydney and Beresford should be used for distances to places north of that. I have some ideas, but no strong feeling of "the right answer", so will invite others to comment please. @Evad37, AussieLegend, Kerry Raymond, Marcnut1996, Iainturville1, and Rangasyd: and anyone else. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Scott Davis, well done on these junction lists.

All roads lead to Rome should be the guiding principle, with the zero marker at the largest capital city. Therefore, focusing on the Sydney end, the Pacific Highway southern terminus is at 33°50′32″S 151°12′37″E, in North Sydney. For the Pacific Motorway , the southern terminus is located at 33°43′12″S 151°06′24″E, in Wahroonga. Please note that this location is NOT at the junction of the Pacific Highway and the Pacific Motorway (Wahroonga Interchange), but a few hundred metres further southwest, at the junction with the Pennant Hills Road / Cumberland Highway . From Pearces Corner, the Pacific Highway terminates as the ; continues northwest as the from Wahroonga to Hornsby; and then north to 33°32′43″S 151°11′51″E, at Brooklyn Road, Cowan. From this point north the carries the confusing dual naming of Pacific Highway and Old Pacific Highway; with the Pacific Highway's northern terminus at 33°25′09″S 151°17′19″E, at the Kariong Interchange, Somersby. Here the road continues either as the Pacific Motorway , the Central Coast Highway , or as Wisemans Ferry Road. I still feel that all articles should be amalgamated with redirects put in place. Most people know the road as the Pacific Highway; and the precedent is there with the Hume Highway/Motorway/Freeway. Rangasyd (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Another way to go would be to "reset" the zero point at places that are convenient for us as editors. Some U.S. roads do this, e.g. when crossing state borders (where the source used for distances changes); and this is also how the Hume Highway exits and interchanges sub-article is currently setup. Whichever way we go, it might be a good idea to have an explanatory footnote, like note d. in Albany Highway#Major_intersections. - Evad37 [talk] 16:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree about amalgamating and having a single main article, so distances need to be done "right" for that end result if possible. That will mean turning the Brisbane end round to run south-north as part of the merge. Distances from Sydney will work, since the exit numbers give an indication of Brisbane distance anyway. We might need to reset near Newcastle (but exactly where!?) with notes that there are two "pacific" routes to Sydney from there, with different distances. Do we know yet whether the upgrades of the remaining middle part is going to upgrade the current Pacific Highway route, rename the existing one to something else, or provide a second "Pacific" route like it seems they have done between Hexham and Wahroonga? I'd prefer to avoid resets as much as possible so that intermediate distances can be calculated by the reader with simple subtraction, not needing to add any intermediate resets. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Evad37, thanks for your feedback on Hume Highway exits and interchanges. As I wrote the article, obviously I am biased. :-) And well done on Albany Highway; although I'm not a big fan of the overly accurate distance measurements. Nevertheless, it's a good article. :-)

Scott Davis, my suggestion is this:

1. Remove the section on major intersections from Pacific Highway (Australia), Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads), Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle), Highway 1 (New South Wales), and Highway 1 (Queensland) [the latter two as they relate to the Pacific only], and move them to Pacific Highway (Australia), Major intersections. By doing so, this reduces the size of the aforementioned articles and will also help to make these articles more focused on other content.
2. Expand Pacific Highway (Australia), Major intersections to embrace the Pacific Hwy and the two sections of the Pacific Motorway - following the model adopted by the Hume Highway exits and interchanges with different sections where the road changes from highway to motorway to highway to motorway.
3. Reorganise Pacific Highway (Australia), Major intersections from south to north, so that the zero markers are reset at North Sydney, Wahroonga, Beresfield/Hexham (Newcastle), and Brunswick Heads, with the northern terminus at Brisbane.
4. Establish a seperate article for the Old Pacific Highway to cover the stretch between Wahroonga/Hornsby to Kariong interchange, covering that the section from Wahroonga/Hornsby to Brooklyn Road, Cowan is actually the Pacific Highway and not the Old Pacific Highway.
5. And then the most challenging, which can happen only following discussion and consensus, merge Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) and Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) into Pacific Highway (Australia). This will be an interesting debate.

There is one significant challenge, as I see it. The stretch between Gosford and Hexham is paralleled by both the Pacific Motorway (inland) and the Pacific Highway (generally coastal). The Pacific Highway (Australia), Major intersections would need to accurately explain the two routes, making the motorway as the main route and the highway as the alternate route. That's my suggestions. Feedback? Rangasyd (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would you even consider merging Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) into Pacific Highway (Australia)? As I said earlier, it is not now, nor has it ever been, part of the Pacific Highway. It doesn't even connect to it directly. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If I'm sitting in a pub in Sydney, and say to my mate "I'm going to drive to Brisbane next weekend." He/she asks "Which way do you intend to go?". I highly doubt that my one-sentence answer over a glass of wine is "I think I'll use the Bradfield Highway, Warringah Freeway, Pacific Highway, Pacific Motorway, Pacific Highway again and finish off back on the Pacific Motorway." I'm much more likely to say "I'll use the Pacific Highway" meaning that I intend to use a coastal route rather than an inland route including the New England Highway. Your insistence that the Pacific Motorway and Pacific Highway are two completely independent routes that don't connect suggests that it is not intended as a high-speed bypass around the towns bends and bridges on the old road, which contradicts the first paragraph of its own History section. I accept that if viewed from between the two roads, they are different, but for most of the world outside of a circle with Sydney and Newcastle/Hexham/Beresfield/Mayfield West on opposite sides, they represent one route, and the distinction can be highlighted within the (family of) article(s) rather than pretending they are completely independent. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia presents facts. It doesn't cater to people's misconceptions or perpetuate myths.

Your insistence that the Pacific Motorway and Pacific Highway are two completely independent routes that don't connect suggests that it is not intended as a high-speed bypass around the towns bends and bridges on the old road - My insistence has nothing to do with that. It refers to one simple, unassailable fact - that the Pacific Motorway is a separate road to the Pacific Highway. The Hunter Expressway was built to bypass the New England Highway between Thornton and Branxton. Would you argue that we should merge those two articles? Those roads actually do meet. And if we're going to argue that the Pacific Motorway should be included in the Pacific Highway article maybe we should merge in the New England Highway as well, because it actually joins the Pacific Highway and forms part of the link between the M1 and the Pacific Highway. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

And, if we were to include the Pacific Motorway, we'd have to make sure all distances were in "klms", because that's a popular misconception as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Scott Davis' pub test analogy. Another example would be if I were describing how to go from Brisbane to Ballina, I'm not going to say take the Pacific Motorway to Brunswick Heads and then the Pacific Highway. That would indicate a turn off is required when it is actually a seamless road. That the bureaucracy, deliberately or by neglect, have not regazetted shouldn't be a defining factor. AussieLegend's analogy of merging the Pacific and New England Highway articles is just silly.

The route from Sydney to Brisbane does go through a number of name changes, as does the Hume Highway which starts as Liverpool Road and the Princes Highway which starts in Sydney as King Street, and enters Melbourne as Dandenong Road and Kings Way before leaving as Geelong Road, yet these are all covered in one article with appropriate redirects. So we should have one Pacific Highway (Australia) article covering the road from North Sydney to Brisbane with an Old Pacific Highway article to cover the old road from Wahroonga to Newcastle via Kariong, Wyong and Swansea.

For the benefit of anybody not familiar with the geography, the old road more or less parallels the dual carriage from Wahroonga to Kariong with the old road taking a route via the eastern side of Lake Macquarie while the dual carriageway runs up the western side, at this point they are about 10km apart as the crow flies. The dual carriageway finishes at Beresfield with route 1 continuing east for 5km via John Renshaw Drive and the New England Highway to Hexham with the old road approaching from Newcastle heading west where the 2 join before crossing the Hunter River and heading north. Silverserv (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Scott Davis' pub test analogy. - As I've said, an encylopaedia is supposed to present facts, not perpetuate myths or blatantly lie. Just because you say that you're driving from Sydney to Brisbane via the Pacific Highway doesn't mean the Pacific Motorway is part of the Highway. It's not. To suggest that it is, is absolutely ridiculous. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia and it's verifiable that the Pacific Motorway and the Pacific Highway are two separate roads. If you say you are driving from Sydney to Brisbane and actually follow the Pacific Highway route, where does the Pacific Motorway even come into play? You're arguing that when talking about a road, we should actually be talking about a route, and that's incorrect, especially since even the route numbers are different.

if I were describing how to go from Brisbane to Ballina, I'm not going to say take the Pacific Motorway to Brunswick Heads and then the Pacific Highway. That would indicate a turn off is required when it is actually a seamless road. - However, the route from Sydney to Newcastle, when following the motorway, is NOT seamless. You have to turn off the Highway to get to the motorway and at the other end you have to turn off the motorway onto John Renshaw Drive and then merge onto the New England Highway. At Hexham you have to exit the New England and turn onto the Pacific Highway, merging on the northbound Hexham Bridge in Thornton.

That the bureaucracy, deliberately or by neglect, have not regazetted shouldn't be a defining factor. - We can't ignore WP:V which, as I've stated, is a core policy. Our naming policy says "Articles are generally not created for routes containing notable roads", which is what you are effectively proposing, because you are advocating inluding roads that are not part of the road, and "Roadways are named by their current public official name as listed in the appropriate government gazette [preferred], or as otherwise used for general administrative purposes, and not their common name, or their internal name according to the relevant government department." What you are advocating is contrary to that.

AussieLegend's analogy of merging the Pacific and New England Highway articles is just silly. - But that's exactly what you are suggesting we should do with the Pacific Highway, i.e. merge in a completely separate road just because you've been drinking wine in a pub.

and the New England Highway to Hexham with the old road approaching from Newcastle - that's not the "old road". That's the actual, gazetted and signposted Pacific Highway, unlike your OR version.

The problem here seems to be that you are taking route 1 to be equal to the Pacific Highway, and that's not the case. Parts of the Pacific Highway are route 1, but not all parts of route 1 are part of the Pacific Highway. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bypasses, old and new roads

I have not intended to say that there would not be distinct articles for significant old or new road segments. I propose that there should be a consistent set of articles with appropriate cross-links. Someone needs to work out whether Macleay Valley Way needs its own article or should be covered in the Pacific Highway (Australia) page, then fix both that article (whichever it is) and Kempsey bus crash which has coordinates that take me to a road that is not (currently) called Pacific Highway to describe both where the crash happened and where it is now (and perhaps a little more explanantion of ht esocial impact of that and Grafton bus crash). Kempsey Council renamed the Kempsey end of what is now the Macleay Valley Way in 2012, but I haven't seen a reference for renaming the section where the busses crashed.

I would choose to have the main "Pacific {High|Motor|Express|Free}way" article describe the "current" (which might change to a new current if/when another bypass is built) route from Sydney to Brisbane, with subordinate/supplementary articles for significant former sections. I guess an alternative perspective would be to make the prime article describe the route as it was when the name Pacific Highway was first applied in 1931, but then there needs to be both history and future sections. My application of WP:COMMON would not be any different if the NSW government had renamed the old road south of Hexham. I wonder if part of our confusion is in determining whether when the F3 road was named "Pacific Motorway", the key part is "Pacific Motorway" or "Pacific Motorway". I feel like I am advocating that "Pacific" is important, and AussieLegend is emphasising "Motorway". --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not emphasising "Motorway", I'm saying that the Pacific Motorway is a completely separate road to the Pacific Highway, the only link being that the motorway was built as a bypass for the Pacific Highway, most of which still exists between Sydney and Newcastle. The current route of the Pacific Highway is pretty much the same as it has always been, with a couple of sections removed/renamed for various reasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The debate here seems to be about whether the article is about the main route between Sydney and Brisbane (i.e. M1/A1/M1), or whether it is about the road(s) called the Pacific Highway. I think Scott is saying (and I agree) that the former is more relevant, with the latter mainly interesting for historic reasons as few would choose to drive the entire length of the Pacific Highway. Ideally we could put both into a single article. Naming it will be somewhat tricky until the entire road is called the Pacific Motorway, but as has been noted earlier we can use the Hume Highway article as a template, where the one article covers the various current road names. Ausmeerkat (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no doubt that few people choose to drive the entire length of the Pacific Highway, but you can't include roads that are not part of the actual Pacific Highway in an article called "Pacific Highway". The article would have to be called something else. The route you're talking about is part of Highway 1, so is most properly addressed in Highway 1 (New South Wales), which already exists. If you're just talking about the route that people drive between Sydney and the NSW/Qld border, or Sydney to Brisbane, then this is covered by WP:NCAURD which says "Articles are generally not created for routes containing notable roads, excluding Highway 1 (Australia)". --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So put the title of the article aside for now. The argument is that the route that people actually drive would make a better article than a number of discontinuous roads that share a name for historical reasons. I'm happy with the guidance that articles are generally not created for routes, but this seems like good grounds for an exception... especially given that all indications are that naming of the major route will be cleaned up in the foreseeable future. Ausmeerkat (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to put the article title aside. The route that people drive is already covered in Highway 1 (New South Wales). There is no need to create another article for just part of that route. The article already links to all relevant articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Grumpypants. We know where you stand, no need to reiterate arguments. Thanksfully everyone else in this conversaton seems dedicated to actually improving the relevant articles, so perhaps there is still hope. Ausmeerkat (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Grumpypants - Not needed at all. Please be civil.

everyone else in this conversaton seems dedicated to actually improving the relevant articles - Well no, the argument was to expand the Pacific Highway article by including roads that aren't part of the Pacific Highway. That's not an improvement. There has also been the suggestion of creating a new article with content that already exists in other articles. That's not improving the relevant articles. My desire is to use common sense and follow our existing policies and guidelines. There is no reason why the NSW Highway 1 article can't be expanded to cover the common route. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: do you have a proposed way forward that enables a coherent story that makes sense to people outside of New South Wales? Highway 1 (New South Wales) does not currently contain information about the history of the route from Sydney to Brisbane which was named Pacific Highway in 1931, and has since been modified by the Pacific Motorway, rerouting to bypass quite a few towns both south and north of Newcastle, new bridges, duplication of carriageways, Kempsey bus crash etc. Should we move Pacific Highway (Australia)#History to that article (and rephrase appropriately)? The comment above about leaving aside the titles for now is to enable us to focus on what content goes in which articles. Once the articles exist, then WP:NC and WP:COMMON can guide us on the title of each article. It feels like you are not interested in sharing your local knowledge on anything except that the Pacific Motorway was not built as a bypass for part of the Pacific Highway and is a completely separate road that happens to have a similar name. Do you see any scope whatsoever for improving any of the related articles, or do you believe they are all perfect as they currently exist? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Highway 1 (New South Wales) is almost a stub as it stands, with just a lead, small history section and two bullet point lists. There is quite a lot of room to expand that article (it actually only has 363 words of readable prose). The route commonly travelled from Sydney to Brisbane is: Pacific Highway, Pacific Motorway, John Renshaw Drive, New England Highway, Pacific Highway, Pacific Motorway. The article doesn't mention John Renshaw Drive or the New England Highway. I drive them often but I can't remember whether they are actually signposted as Highway 1 however it would seem logical to mention them, since that's the route that people have to travel, and at least one of my GPS shows the Highway 1 route marker. The Pacific Highway article should certainly include more of the history of the actual road. For example, a section of the Pacific Highway through Newcastle is no longer part of the Pacific Highway, despite still being signposted as such. If you get caught by the speed camera in Mayfield on Maitland Road, it will still indicate that you were caught on the Pacific Highway. Adelaide Street through Raymond Terrace was part of the Pacific Highway until 1998 when the town was bypassed. The Pacific Highway used to go through Karuah as well. Those stories, and those of other bypassed towns should be at least mentioned in the Pacific Highway article. Essentially, the Highway 1 article should remain an umbrella article, noting that specific roads that were part of Highway 1 are no longer part of Highway 1, but the specifics of how roads were bypassed should be in their own articles, unless the road doesn't have an article, which is why Maitland Road would be included. Things that occurred on a particular road should be in the article for that road, not moved to another article. This, by the way, is how we write most articles on Wikipedia.

It feels like you are not interested in sharing your local knowledge on anything except - That is both unfair and completely untrue. My position has always only been that we should not arbitrarily decide that "road a" is part of "road b" if it is verifiable that "road a" is NOT part of "road b". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of putting much more content into the Highway 1 article... if the other articles continue to exist in some form it will result in duplication and loss of maintainability. Scott, my thinking is that we should have one article about the Pacific Highway from North Sydney to Newcastle, and one about the Pacific ****way and links (M1/A1/M1) from Wahroonga to Brisbane (including the history). If all goes as expected the latter article can be called Pacific Motorway in time, but the notability of this route is clear whatever names the government puts on it. Ausmeerkat (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to say it won't happen, but if we use a little bit of common sense, any problems with duplication should be minimal. For example, even though the roads through Raymond Terrace and Karuah were part of Highway 1 before the towns were bypassed, the routes through the towns were specifically part of the Pacific Highway, so the specifics of the the bypasses should be in the history sections of that article. At the most, the history part of the Highway 1 article would simply list towns that had been bypassed, or maybe not even mention them at all, other than a simple statement saying that several towns had been bypassed over the years. Again, this is no different to the way that we write and split any other articles on Wikipedia. Australia, for example, doesn't list the Sydney Opera House, even though it's an internationally recognised Australian icon and World Heritage site. New South Wales does mention the opera house, but in a minimal way. The specifics of the opera house's history is detailed in the Sydney Opera House article. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I wrote Macleay Valley Way this afternoon for the section of former Pacific Highway that included the Kempsey bus crash. I've included a link from Pacific Highway (Australia) but not from Highway 1 (New South Wales). I think the NSW Government has indicated that it expects to eventually name (after upgrades, bypasses, etc) the entire road from Sydney to Brisbane the "Pacific Motorway". Do we have any indication of which roads (if any) it intends to remain called "Pacific Highway" after that change, rather than "Old Pacific Highway" or any other names? I noticed in writing Macleay Valley Way that the old road was transferred to the shire council. Is the old road south of Newcastle still a state highway, or maintained by the shire/city councils (or some of each)? The problem here seems to be about deciding what the boundaries are between articles. We have potential for "different roads", "different times" and "different endpoints". Not all "old roads" are renamed or destroyed when "new roads" replace them, or when the name and/or number are moved from one road to another. The Pacific Mumbleway seems to be causing more trouble than other similar examples. The Sturt Highway in South Australia has had several significant changes of route over the years, as well as changes of alignment within a general route. Is that different because less editors care, or is there something else? I'd be happy to try to respond if an out-of-towner identifies issues with the current article that should be improved (particularly in the Riverland and west of Nuriootpa).--Scott Davis ^Talk 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any indication of which roads (if any) it intends to remain called "Pacific Highway" after that change, rather than "Old Pacific Highway" or any other names? - The F3 to Raymond Terrace link is supposed to join the Pacific Highway at the northeastern extremity of the current residential area. In effect the link will become the "Raymond Terrace bypass bypass". They've already started by closing the median strip at around this point (meaning that I now have to take a 3.5km detour to get home when coming from the north - grrrrr!). Pretty much everything south of this point that is currently the Pacific Highway will remain the Pacific Highway from what I've been told.

I noticed in writing Macleay Valley Way that the old road was transferred to the shire council. Is the old road south of Newcastle still a state highway, or maintained by the shire/city councils (or some of each)? - I think the latter is the case. The part of the Pacific Highway that ran from Stewart Avenue in Newcastle West to Industrial Drive in Mayfield West, which is part Hunter Street and part Maitland Road, was "de-highwayed" in 2013, shifting maintenance responsibilities from the state to Newcastle City Council. I assume that has been consistently applied. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any indication of which roads (if any) it intends to remain called "Pacific Highway" after that change, rather than "Old Pacific Highway" or any other names? ... Pretty much everything south of this point that is currently the Pacific Highway will remain the Pacific Highway from what I've been told. I believe most of the signs south of Newcastle have "Pacific Highway" coverplates over "Old Pacific Highway". A couple are exposed as "Old Pacific Highway" but most are not. I do not know this indicates a future plan to change the name, or possibly an abandoned plan. Ausmeerkat (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

After doing a bit more searching, I found that on Gazette #100 (11 August 2006), page 1602, it states that HW10 Pacific Highway actually ends at the Calga Interchange north of the Hawkesbury river. So the section of road between that interchange and Kariong is not a part of HW10 (despite being listed in the Pacific Highway (Australia) article). Also several recent gazettes about roads with limited access refer to "Old Pacific Highway from the Hawkesbury River to Kariong" (despite the fact that between the river and Calga interchange is still apparently HW10). I couldn't find any references to that section of the highway being renamed to Old Pacific Highway, but I'd imagine that once excised from HW10 they can rename it without requiring a gazette entry. In any event, this just adds weight to the argument that the collection of roads that are technically the Pacific Highways are not particularly notable. Ausmeerkat (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/Archive 6/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Australian Roads.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Australian Roads, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

State Strategic Touring Route

I have finally worked out what Adventure Way and Savannah Way are; it seems they are two of ten State Strategic Touring Routes in Queensland. Now there are 8 more of these that don't yet have Wikipedia articles. Where should they sit in the category hierarchy? Presumably somewhere within Category:Roads in Queensland and whichever states are involved -- some of these routes cross state borders. Where should they sit in the navbox Template:Road infrastructure in Queensland (and other states as applicable)? At the moment, the only one in the template is the Savannah Way which is grouped in outback tracks and developmental roads (fair enough), but a number of these SSTRs are not outback/developmental so don't really belong here. I was wondering if the SSTRs should have their own section in the template as they follow existing roads but do not replace them. Since SSTRs in Qld are recognised as National Tourism Signage Reference Group, I presume that other states must have some way of identying their long-haul tourist routes (I'm not talking about local scenic drives). Because of the standardised signage in use for these tourist routes, I presume they all qualify as "common names" as that it was people will be seeing on the routes. I guess the key point here is that we are discussing routes rather than roads. Kerry (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

State Strategic Touring Route is listed in Category:Roads in Queensland. Logically, it should be a subcategory. Template:Road infrastructure in Queensland could have a separate group. Downsize43 (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Rename State Strategic Touring Route to State Strategic Touring Routes in Queensland. Downsize43 (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

All of these suggestions are now implemented! Kerry (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Google maps on iPad

I can live with most of the deficiencies of Google maps on iPad, but would like a solution to this one: On PC route distances less than 100km are shown to one decimal place, but on iPad they are rounded to a whole number. Any suggestions? Downsize43 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Use the PC version! I don't think there is a way to configure the app to behave any differently. Kerry (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kerry, Thanks for the reply. I will explain the reason for my question. When I create a Google map for a route on a PC the total distance is displayed to 1 decimal place if it is less than 100 km. When I save the URL and use it in a ref it displays correctly on a PC, but on an iPad it rounds to a whole number for values above 9.9 km. Cheers, John Downsize43 (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's an issue that Wikipedians could fix. You can try to take the issue to the developers at Google, if that really bothers you.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Some Google map routes displayed incorrectly on iPad

For anyone interested:
Take a look at Ref 1 of Macleay Valley Way on a PC and then on an iPad. This difference occurs whenever a route on a map has been adjusted from Google's first result before the URL is saved. For this reason the use of Google to produce route maps is of limited value. Downsize43 (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

Many articles on this list have no template referring to the listed problem, which raises 2 questions:
1. How do they get on the list, and how is one able to definitively find and fix the problem?
2. How is an article with a fixed problem removed from the list? Downsize43 (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles are listed as needing cleanup if they are in one or more of the hidden "cleanup" categories. As the name suggests, hidden categories are not normally shown to readers. To see them, you need to name them in your preferences. Go to Preferences > Appearances > Advanced Options > tick "Show hidden categories".

How do the articles get put in these categories? Templates like {{citation needed}}, {{coord missing}}, etc add these categories as part of the definition of the template. So whenever anyone adds such templates into the article, the article becomes automatically added to the hidden category.

So, removing those templates from the article will remove the articles from the category and hence from the listing. Note that sometimes these kinds of changes don't propagate instantly (I note the date on the cleanup list is 25 July), so you don't immediately panic if the removal of the template doesn't remove the article from the cleanup list. I don't know the schedule for things getting updated but presumably it happens eventually. Kerry (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kerry, And now for a related question: Is there any way to exclude the links to an article from Road Infrastructure templates, from the results of "What links here?" I suspect that this might reveal some more orphans in the roads articles. Downsize43 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Often an article appears heavily "linked to" but on examination of the individual articles that link to it, it turns out that the link came out of a navbox. This makes it difficult to determine if there are any "real" links. I've seen this question discussed on the research mailing list and the consensus appears to be "there is no easy way to find out" unfortunately. The problem is that you need to analyse the wikitext itself to look for the links rather than analyse the article after the templates are transcluded. But the problem is that some templates (like navboxes) are the ones we want to eliminate but other templates may be creating "real" links, e.g. Template:QLDcity and its friends where the uses may occur in the text of the article and are the kind of links you wanting to find. So not all templates can be overlooked in the analysis. Kerry (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. Guess I wont bother looking for orphans. Downsize43 (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Navbox: Bruce Highway towns

I have created navbox Bruce Highway towns, and substituted it for a list in Bruce Highway. I am now seeking advice on whether it would be appropriate to add it to:

• Associated road articles (see bottom of navbox)
• Localities named in the navbox
• Anything else

Thanks, Downsize43 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If this approach is used, the navbox should be at the end of the articles per WP:NAVBOX (i.e. in addition to regular content rather than replacing article content) – "Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia which accounts for around half of readers." In addition, having collapsed content in articles is problematic per MOS:COLLAPSE. While long bullet-form lists like [1] are not very nice, the much better solution is to put them into prose as (part of) a route description, like at Brand Highway, North West Coastal Highway, Eyre Highway, and our other good/featured articles. - Evad37 [talk] 02:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

new route image needed

The inner ring route in Adelaide has been signposted as R1 for several months, but there is not an image for {{AUshield|SA|R1}} presently renders as a red x15px. Could whoever knows how to make them properly please create one? Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@ScottDavis:  Done - Evad37 [talk] 00:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Proposed A-Class Review rule changes

There have been some proposed changes to the A-Class review process at the discussion above. --Rschen7754 20:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

needs-kml on project banner

I looked at the Lincoln Highway (Australia) article. The project banner on the talk page said that it needed a RJL, KML and map. The article already had the RJL added two years ago.

• I have added start and end coordinates to the infobox, so it now has a location map with endpoints - does this satisfy "needs-map"?
• The WikiMiniAtlas displays a blue line for the path of the highway, but the project banner template is not detecting KML. The {{Attached KML}} template does not find it either. I don't know where the atlas pulls it from, so don't know if I should report a bug in the detection systems, or if the KML does not exist and the atlas has pulled the line data from somewhere else. If the latter, is there a way of finding out where it comes from, and using it for the KML as well?

--Scott Davis ^Talk 23:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The "needs-map" parameter tracks whether an article has a map image, usually in the infobox (like File:Great Eastern Highway route map.png for Great Eastern Highway). This is so the reader can see the where the road goes, at a glance, without clicking (especially important if reading offline, or as a PDF or printed version). Ideally the map should show connecting roads, major cities/suburbs/localities, route marker graphics if appropriate, with the road itself highlighted in a distinctive colour; and be at an appropriate scale (only show the whole state or country for very long highways/roads). Endpoint coordinates can be useful, but unless displayed in context on a map they are pretty much meaningless for most people.
I'm not sure where the WikiMiniAtlas line comes from – usually KML files are either specified in the {{Attached KML}} template on the page, or (preferably) on the page's Wikidata item, but neither seems to be the case for Lincoln Highway (Australia). - Evad37 [talk] 08:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've managed to work out where the route is coming from - WikiMiniAtlas is getting the route directly from OpenStreetMap. A relation has been added for Lincoln Highway, and this relation has attributes referring back to both Wikipedia and Wikidata. WIWOSM seems to be the place to start reading up on how this works. Harryboyles 09:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for tracking that. WIWOSM explicitly says not to link from Wikidata to relation IDs in OSM (only link from OSM to Wikidata). It looks like it is possible to export from OSM to KML using Overpass Turbo but I have no idea 1) what the copyright considerations are or 2) what the data quality considerations are for exporting from OSM then importing a copy of the route as it is now to English Wikipedia. It feels like a better solution would be to expand both templates to check for an OSM route and display that when required, similar to how WikiMiniAtlas does. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup listing - Neutrality - Accuracy disputes - Self-published sources

Articles in this listing because of [self-published source] have only a date in the Issues column. A more detailed description would be helpful. IMHO these should be listed under References, either with their own sub-heading or as "Reliable references lacking". Downsize43 (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Some response before the archive machine arrives would be appreciated. Downsize43 (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The cleanup listing is an external tool updated by a bot (User:CleanupWorklistBot). I'm not sure if there is any on-wiki changes we could make to adjust the list organisation - probably need to ask the maintainer Bamyers99 - Evad37 [talk] 12:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Downsize43: I have moved articles in Category:Accuracy disputes to the References group in the cleanup listings (starting Jan 2, 2018). I have changed the sub-heading to "Accuracy disputes or self-published". At least three templates use the "Accuracy disputes" category and the cleanup listing program can't tell which template was used on a given page. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Downsize43 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Road infrastructure in Western Australia

I have started a discussion at Template talk:Road infrastructure in Western Australia, and I would like some people to comment. Silkkappa168 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the entire project team is on holidays! Downsize43 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Black Spur Etymology - from The Herald 1931 on Trove.gov.au

Herald, Tuesday 17 February 1931, page 6

THE BLACK SPUR

Sir, — With reference to Mr Wallace Crabbe's letter regarding tho naming of the Black Spur, I can supply the solution on first hand Information.

The late Mr George Thomas Jones, surveyor and engineer, whose name appears on several early survey maps, was a member of the party which made the original survey. He was later engineer to the shires of Maffra and Learmonth. In 1914 he. on retirement, was living in Ballarat, and having known him for over thirty years I had many talks with him about early days. He ridiculed the idea that the spur received Its name either after a mythical Mr Black or the aborigines. The country was rough and heavily timbered. The survey party had to clear a line up tho spur to take the bearings. Axemen were sent on to do this, and it was arduous work in sombre surroundings. Returning to camp very tired, the men were greeted with the question. "Well, what Is It like?" The leader, throwing down his axe, ejaculated with emphasis, "It's a black -----" : As the survey proceeded the spur be came known by that term, which of course could not be used in the surveyor's field book so he entered it as "The Black Spur."

— Yours etc, Chelsea, Feb, Id.

P. J. C. WALLACE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.213.161 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Condamine Highway

Google maps seems very convinced that there is a Condamine Highway which runs from Condamine, Queensland more or less straight west to the an intersection with the Carnarvon Highway. However, Queensland Transport & Main Roads seems blissfully unaware of it and the Queensland Globe shows it as the Roma Condamine Road. Any clues what's going on here? Have Google taken to designating their own highways? Was it once a highway and got downgraded? Kerry (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I suspect local usage developed over time, possibly started by this: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/41000371

Seems like an early example of "fake news". Maybe Google thought it was real!! Downsize43 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

AUshield required for Tasmanian Route C340

I am working on an RJL for Arthur Highway and would like to include a shield for Route C340. Can anyone help? Thanks. Downsize43 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You could ask at WP:HWY/RM and see if anyone can do it. --Rschen7754 23:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Skyhook99

@Marcnut1996: For your interest in Sydney roads. @Evad37: FYI. Please see my comments on the talk pages of Bells line of road and Parramatta Road. This user appears to be full of good intentions but with no regard for the researched and referenced work of many others where it differs from their personal opinion. None of their many changes are referenced, deletions are not explained, and text changes are not reflected in RJL or Infobox. I can see many problems even without access to the original references, but am not in a position to rectify them short of a wholesale undo. Are you willing and/or able to thoroughly review these change? Downsize43 (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, the user did not add or remove any references in the two articles. It was simply just a rewording based on the existing references and text. No new unreferenced information was added. As for removed information, they were originally unreferenced or had little importance to the article. It definitely looks OK to me. Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The User has changed both ends of Bells Line of Road in the text to places not supported by Google maps, which is the listed reference, but has not made corresponding changes in the RJL or the Infobox.

In Parramatta Road a quote from a listed reference stated “In 1814, a stage cart service started ...”. The user has changed “stage cart” to “stagecoach”. A quick google search finds at least 2 references that state “a stagecoach service started in the 1920s”. By making a change to a well-researched entry the user has re-written history to match their personal opinion. I rest my case. Downsize43 (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

For Parramatta Road stagecoach text, the user merely changed the wording to existing text. He/She is not the one that wrote the 1814. It was already unreferenced in the first place. If it was indeed a stagecart service or stagecoach service, and/or you think the edit is wrong, perhaps you can add what you found on google onto the article? As for Bell Lines of Road, I agree that the user has made a small mistake about the ends. This has been changed back to the original text. Marcnut1996 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Margaret River Perimeter Road

I've just tried to update Margaret River Perimeter Road and the articles that link to it, as construction on the road has been completed now. I hope I haven't broken anything horribly. It should probably be added to the list of major roads in rural Western Australia, but I'm not confident enough to do that myself. Pinging @Evad37: as the article's creator. Graham87 13:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Australian roads

Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Can I Join

Can I please join Tramfan1203 (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tramfan1203: You were joined from the moment you added your name to the list of participants! There is no barrier to entry; everyone who wants to contribute (within the polices of Wikipedia) is welcome in pretty much every WikiProject. And there is no requirement to sign up as a member of this project in order to contribute to an article about Australian road topics. Signing up suggests you are especially interested in a topic and probably keen to take part in discussions about how articles in that topic space are developed (e.g. maintaining some consistency in style and content etc). Welcome! Kerry (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

M4 potential move

I stated a move discussion on Talk:M4 Western Motorway on moving the page to M4 Motorway (Sydney) for the same rationale and style as M5 Motorway (Sydney) (move discussion). The two other main participants in the M5 move discussion between 2013 and 2016 seem to have retired from Wikipedia. I am just trying to get feedback before executing the move. Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Length citations in road infoboxes

See discussion above. --Rschen7754 04:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ross Highway

Hi everyone,

I have just created an article for the Ross Highway in the Northern Territory. As it is the first article that I have written about a road, can someone have a critical look at it and report comments here?

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

List of road routes in Queensland: A21 and A139

These are 2 new roads in my home area of Toowoomba. The A21 goes from Heldion Spa via Toowoomba to Charlton, and the A139 from Harristown via Westbrook to Athol. I am inexperienced in editing tables in Wikipedia, so I was wondering if someone could add them to List of road routes in Queensland.

Elipoloos123 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Queensland Transport https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/toowoomba-bypass dated 3 August 2020 has A21 from Helidon Spa to Toowoomba and A139 from Athol to Toowoomba. There is no mention of A21 from Charlton to Toowoomba, as shown on Google maps. Downsize43 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

However, signposts shown on street view supports the A21 alignment between Charlton and Toowoomba. TMR may have accidentally left the Charlton to Towpoomba section out as there was no mention of it. Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Queensland Globe confirms that A21 goes all the way to Charlton. I have updated the table in List of road routes in Queensland and relevant articles to reflect the changes. However, we lack an AUshield of A139 to put in the table. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Is a road a Building or Structure?

An editor is placing road articles in categories “Building or Structure in X”. Is this acceptable? Downsize43 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Structure, sure, but building?! No. –Fredddie™ 08:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This would imply that any road could be included in categories “Building or Structure in X” for each occurrence of X that applies, typically each local authority. Seems like overkill to me. Downsize43 (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Some "roads" I've been on well outside the big cities are nothing more than two wheel ruts. Perhaps they had a grader or a dozer clear a path some years before, but "structure" seems a bit much. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Table of toll prices

I am testing the use of a toll table (see Toll roads in Australia) which can be transcluded to various relevant articles. I have done so for NorthConnex, Westlink M7 and Cross City Tunnel just for a test. I intend on doing the same for Queensland and Victorian toll roads. Suggestions welcome.

Meanwhile, I am also thinking whether to combine the columns of flagfall, price/km and max toll to one single column with bullet points. Just because, the flagfall and price/km columns are meaningless for most articles except WestConnex roads.Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Also my aim is to remove the need to update the price every 3 months on each article, when you can just edit all at once in the table.Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, great idea.

Thenorthernterritory1234 (✉) 08:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

National Highway Alphanumerics

Hi,

I know that NH Alphas were phased out in QLD and VIC. I know that new A1, A20 and A87 signs were recently installed in SA without the NH shield. Are National Highway Alphanumerics no longer in full use in SA? I'm only asking this because if they aren't in full use, then I should change the SA Road articles.

Cheers,

Thent1234 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Using road signs as references

Since I first took an interest in Australian Roads I have followed many discussions about when it is appropriate to update articles to reflect changes in road conditions. These have always stressed the view that “it’s not real until it is in some official document”. Because most editors, myself included, have little or no access to official documents I have taken the view that the various mapping systems are based on said official documents and should therefore be reliable sources.

A number of relatively new editors have recently taken to making changes to articles based on what is shown on road signs. In some cases these changes have resulted in incorrect or inconsistent information in articles. I have waited in vain for someone with appropriate knowledge of policy to challenge these changes. A significant number of previously adequate articles (based on map data from either government agencies or commercial providers) are now in such a state (with unreferenced route numbers and other unexplained changes) that I am loath to touch them. Downsize43 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone care, or is this project now a toothless tiger? Downsize43 (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

My personal preference is to use signs (street view etc.) as reference instead of gazetted or official desginations. However, I know this is not accepted and I have to stick to the latter. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Why then does not someone who identifies as a member of the Project take on the rectification of these changes and the “education” of the involved user/s? Downsize43 (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Because I do not know who are the new editors and which articles they have edited. Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Start with Thent1234 and Thegwh32. Check their road related articles for the last month or so. Downsize43 (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not going to lie, I really do not like the edits they have been doing. They probably do not even know this project page existed which explains their unconventional way of dong things. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Downsize43 and Marcnut1996:

Which state is it, because I have done it 3 different states, is it Vic or NT.

Thanks, Thent1234 (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thent1234, Life200BC, and Marcnut1996: As it appears that changes to the Queensland road list continue to be made based on road signs I request that the following changes be made in conjunction (and in retrospect):

• Provide a reference.
• Change “Length” where appropriate.
• Reflect the change in the associated road article/s (at least in the Infobox - with ref; preferably also in the RJL)
• Add an “Update” template to the article/s (as some text changes will almost always be needed)

Thanks. Downsize43 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Downsize43, Life200BC, Marcnut1996, and Thegwh32:

Is it okay if I put toll signs on the QLD list (i.e. with blue background like this: or ) because putting it with a green background is incorrect. For Marcnut1996 and Thegwh32 (as you are Syd residents) if you haven't seen the new QLD toll signs, they look like Vic toll signs. (like this)

Thent1234 (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

And for National Highway 39. It is written as A39 in the Queensland Page. However. Anything south of Goondiwindi, is as QMDR changed it from A39 to to be consistent with NSW. Now that NSW has changed to alphanumerics, it's just floating in the middle of nowhere. Writing it as A39 however is incorrect though, what shall I do?

I have no comments as I am not familiar with Queensland roads. Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Marcnut1996: I did ask Life200BC as he/she might know better.

Thent1234 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thent1234, Life200BC, and Marcnut1996: An example of the residue problems left after changes based on road signs is as listed below for the M5/A5 in Brisbane:

• There is no reference for showing the road from Deebing Heights to Springfield Lakes as Centenary Motorway (M5). This is particularly problematic given that it is a two lane road with roundabouts, hardly motorway standard. Sorry, I see this is as per Google - must be getting dyslexic. Downsize43 (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• The length shown is incorrect.
• The Centenary Highway / Centenary Motorway article has not been updated with this new information.

Please advise whether these problems will be fixed for this and other routes that have been similarly affected.

Regards. Downsize43 (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Will be fixed

Thent1234 (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I recently changed the Toll road signs from to for all the toll road because as seen here https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.499838,153.039776,3a,75y,358.28h,110.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTWtHrjG-eLNRSrskyEbQjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 a green symbol is used. Could this be as the tunnel was built by BCC or That the numbering was changed since the tunnel has been built. Please advice if I should revert because I'm not current sure what to do. Life200BC (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Life200BC, was deliberately signed by QMDR and is an official route according to Paul Rands. Also the only green (not M6) signs are the remnant s as I know recently QMDR has changed their standards to show blue signs for tolls I know there's a ton of Remnant's in Brisbane so explains why. It's similar in NSW with the Alphanumeric routes (not tolls) that now are borderless but only get's put once signs are replaced but we don't change the ones that only have the signs but instead change all on Wiki. Similarly, as the Logan Motorway was Metroad 6, and it only changed around this year? (Sorry, what happens when you've left the state 9 years ago) Same with the Toowoomba Bypass. Also Could you provide a route number for me with these routes. I know some pass multiple.

The Clem Jones Tunnel (Clem7), - M7

Legacy Way Tunnel - M5

Go Between Bridge are tolled by Linkt on behalf of the Brisbane City Council - M3 Northbound only, right?

The Gateway Bridges M1

The Gateway Motorway between The Pacific Motorway and The Logan Motorway it tolled.[1] - (I'm guessing it's M2)

The entirety of the Logan Motorway is tolled. - M2/M6

The Toowoomba Bypass between Helidon Spa and Mort Street is tolled - A2

Southern Cross Way - Is it tolled? https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sir+Leo+Hielscher+Bridges,+Queensland/@-27.4340458,153.0837144,17.42z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x6b915927d711a00b:0xe7fa43b0fdc146da!8m2!3d-27.4436995!4d153.1005921

Thanks, Thent1234 (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Life200BC and Downsize43:

I have added as it is an official route. I've updated the distances on M39 (A39 - Sorry, I was thinking about Goulburn Valley Freeway in Victoria, one of two freeways on the east coast that I haven't been on) and . Let me know if I should remove it. Also for Thegwh32, if you know anything, please help us.

Cheers,

Thent1234 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Duplication of entries in List of road routes in Queensland

A relatively new user has duplicated a number of entries in the list (showing the route in the reverse direction) I consider this unnecessary duplication but am loath to revert because of their involvement in making changes based on road signs, as described above. Downsize43 (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems this user and another have made wholesale duplications of routes in the NSW and Vic lists, and either nobody has noticed or nobody cares. Meanwhile another user and I have each reversed some changes in the Qld list, and have requested that they not persist with this behaviour. Downsize43 (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Further investigation reveals several other duplications in the Qld list, which apparently cannot be reversed due to other changes. It needs someone with authority to put a stop to this and then revert to the last correct version. Those making these changes have also put shields in the text in the Notes column, which I believe is also forbidden. Downsize43 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Downsize43

I realised that duplication is more important in NSW and VIC as different Routes have different lengths depending on the direction you go (e.g. A2/A40). However, I do now think that in QLD, there isn't such a thing and I'll restrict it to NSW and VIC only. Keep in fact that I am doing this with another user too. Thent1234 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, where does it say, you can't use shields in boxes. Thent1234 (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOICONS Downsize43 (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Except that this isn't exactly an icon and it still provides the same meaning. It doesn't distract the reader.

I refer you to WP:RJL#Text appearance. Downsize43 (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thent1234: One thing I don't understand is, how does A2/A40 differ in length in each direction? You said previously on your talk page that "A2 goes from Seven Hills to Windsor one way while it goes from Windsor to Baulkham Hills the other way." But neither A2 or A40 go via Baulkham Hills in either direction? Also, in NSW, I don't think there is a single route which runs a different alignment in each direction. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Marcnut1996

Google Maps got it wrong. See my image for what I'm talking about. I know this because I use this route very frequently, You can also see it on Google Streetview.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.7509209,150.9516353,3a,15y,155.06h,96.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szs0KsHKos-y5kzW-w1ziZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.7405448,150.9263313,3a,75y,76.21h,83.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfZHceMV5GEfmCwdv6eX93Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.7620305,150.9612404,3a,75y,144.57h,72.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgRmlfZqzdz3la2cgUrltwg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.7590813,150.9547012,3a,15y,36.34h,103.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syC72sgpy6okP7ljdQ5qoSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

theres more signs as well.

File:2,7 and 40 junction.png

Thent1234 (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The route markers were based off the previous route marker (Metroad 2) prior to the rollout of the alphanumeric system. The errors are minor and probably did not get fixed. Bear in mind that markers that have always been there does not necessarily mean its true. Officially the M2/A2 runs along the the M2 motorway, Abbott Road and Old Windsor Road as this is the route even prior to the opening of the M7 motorway. Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

And even in the case that you are correct, it still does not justify duplicating an entire column in the table, when you can just mention that there are some differences in routing around the Seven Hills Road area. Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marcnut1996, I thought Met. 2 got rerouted after the opening of Westlink M7. Also on a sidenote, does anyone know whether A6 will have a different route number because of the future M6. Thent1234 (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You could be potentially be right. However, no one actually knows what route Met.2 and now A2/M2 takes. See Ozroads http://ozroads.com.au/NSW/RouteNumbering/Metroads/2/old-2.htm and http://ozroads.com.au/NSW/RouteNumbering/Metroads/2/metroad2.htm. Signs since M7 opening contradict each other and no one knows what's exactly right. But I think the common consensus is that the parts tolled under M2 is M2 and the parts tolled under M7 is M7. Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Marcnut1996:

I don't think so. Once the toll period is over, then it really means that. If not, then the signs are an error. Only RMS knows.

Thent1234 (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Downsize43, take in fact that its two users doing this, but we have fairly similar usernames and as such may be difficult to find out. Thent1234 (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Marcnut1996, I have been doing this in NSW for a number of reasons, some of them being that the roads that route numbers are allocated to can go straight in one direction and have a turn in another direction, such as the B83 in Asquith. Another reason is that suburb lines often are in the middle of the roads, and this method allows for both suburbs to be known. We would appreciate any suggestions and feedback. I have only done this for NSW roads and not for any other state, so I am unaware of what has been done on the QLD and VIC pages. Thegwh32 (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Marcnut1996

So I've got the idea from Thegwh32 and done it in the QLD, VIC, SA and NT pages. Will do it for ACT soon. (as they are also Queenslandy)

Thent1234 (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thent1234 and Marcnut1996: What I would like to see now is all duplicates removed from the Queensland list unless there is a discernible difference in distance travelled and/or streets traversed, which differences should be clearly shown. Downsize43 (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. To my understanding, there are no routes with significant differences between both directions. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed

Thent1234 (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple images nominated for deletion

A number of images from commons that are used by this project have been nominated for deletion. I became aware of this because of edits made to pages on my watchlist.[2][3][4] The multiple deletion discussions are linked from the respective pages. --06:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs)

@AussieLegend: Please see the discussion above; there are concerns that because the threshold of originality in Australia is very low that the images are actually copyrighted. --Rschen7754 07:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been a while but I was once told by Standards Australia staff that images that are in Australian Standards are generally freely reproducible. Regardless, just because there is a concern, that doesn't mean it's a valid claim and the nominator should have researched his opinion before nominating. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree - but unfortunately multiple editors have researched this and have found nothing definitive either way. --Rschen7754 07:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Tidying up following changes to List of road routes in Queensland

It is fundamental that the entries in the list of road routes should reflect the information in the individual road articles. Recent mass changes to the list have left many discrepancies to be rectified in articles. To quote just one example, the Cunningham Highway article and its associated list entries require the following corrections:

• Route numbers are out of sequence in the Infobox
• The transition from M15 to A15 is not shown in the RJL
• An earlier transition at Blackstone should be removed
• Route 42 in the National Highway List has incorrect information

Downsize43 (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Downsize43, Life200BC, and Marcnut1996: What is the RJL?

Major exits and intersections table.

What's the incorrect info in

42 starts from Warwick, not Ipswich, and the length is wrong.

Thanks, Thenorthernterritory1234 (✉) 07:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

See replies above. Downsize43 (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Downsize43:

I left QLD before the M15 change. Need to ask Life200BC.

Thent1234 (✉) 20:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of shields on the template:Road infrastructure in Queensland

IMHO this is unnecessary. It reduces readability for no benefit. That it has introduced errors is incidental, eg. Cunningham Highway NR42 shield is missing. Downsize43 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It was added for the NSW section. Maybe it's why its on the QLD section

Thent1234 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)