Jump to content

Talk:Eyre Highway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SA details

[edit]

Summaries of localities on the SA side - yes - none for the wa side. needs expanding to balance the info SatuSuro 15:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some of the notable places on the W.A. side. Have traveled this road more than a few times in my life. Gemfyre (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limit

[edit]

What's the speed limit here? Googling seems to suggest it's just like a normal highway, e.g. 110 kph. ☮Soap☮ 19:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-section “Improvement” - content re the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area

[edit]

I edited the article in March 2015 to replace Nullarbor National Park with Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area in order to record the creation of the latter in 2013. I looked at the article again today to review the “Failed verification” template. After re-reading the content, I came to the conclusion that the content regarding the Nullarbor National Park should not be included at all in the first place as the re-alignment of the highway was completed in 1976 prior to the proclamation of the national park in 1979. I would therefore suggest removing the following words “and running through the centre of the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area.” If there are no objections, I will remove the words along with the citation and the “failed verification” template. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{not in source}} tag because of all the information in the preceding sentences, all that the source actually verified was the existence of the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area – it does not mention the highway's current or previous routes at all. I have no objection to your proposed removal. It might still be worth mentioning the national park / protection area in the Route description section, but only if there's a source which shows/discusses the highway's route(s) in relation to it. - Evad37 [talk] 06:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussed content has been removed. I will look at an upgrade of the route description within SA within the next couple of days. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay - I had to make some edits to the Eyre Peninsula article to include a description of the peninsula's extent as this affects the description of the highway's route used in this article (please refer the section entitled Naming and extent. Firstly, the road description has been upgraded using a pair of maps and a Defence SA publication (all cited). Secondly, I have replaced the words "skirts the northern boundary (of the Eyre Peninsula)" in two places as this is not correct with the words "crosses the top". As apparent from the maps that I have cited, the highway heads to the south-east away from the peninsula's northern limit until it reaches Kyancutta where it is about 100 km south of the peninsula's northern limit (& about 200 km from the peninsula's southern point) and where it goes east before heading to the north-west just before Kimba in order to have the shortest route to the top of Spencer Gulf. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1960s standard width

[edit]

According to Eyre Highway#Further improvements:

The 1960s standard of a 6.2-metre (20 ft) sealed width with 1.2-metre-wide (3 ft 11 in) gravel shoulders ...

but Metrication in Australia says that "Before 1970, Australia mostly used the imperial system". I suspect that the "1960s standard" actually gave the width in feet, so we probably ought to say "20-foot (6.1 m) ...", per WP:UNITS, Special considerations.

Possibly the cited source, The Vital Link: A History of Main Roads Western Australia 1926–1996 (which I don't have access to, to check) gives the measurements in metric, which puts us in a quandary, because we should accurately reflect the cited source. Is it possible to dig up the actual "1960s standard" to cite?
I suspect that the shoulder width will turn out be 4 ft, not 3 ft 11 in. 4 ft = 1.2192 metres, which could have been rounded by The Vital Link to 1.2 metres, which was then rounded by {{convert}} to 3 ft 11.
Mitch Ames (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The metric values are from the source: "When completed in 1969 it had been sealed 6.2 metres wide with 1.2-metre gravel shoulders, the standard road width at the time.". {{Convert}} does have a flip option we could use, if we want imperial units first with the Vital Link source: {{convert|6.2|m|adj=on|order=flip}} → 20-foot (6.2 m) - Evad37 [talk] 09:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specifying feet only and decreasing precision gives 4 ft for the shoulders: {{convert|1.2|m|ft|sigfig=1|adj=on|order=flip}} → 4-foot (1.2 m), but this looks to me like cheating - fitting the facts to the theory - because it's only speculation on my part about what the standard actually said, or indeed that there was a written standard. Perhaps https://www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/ can help. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not from that site – from the FAQ page, "When you download a publication from the WebShop it is the most up-to-date version available at the time of purchase." - Evad37 [talk] 00:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is something from NAASRA (Austroad's predecessor) from 1965 at trove[1], but I don't think we can use it, or any particular standard, without violating WP:OR/SNYTH. The "standard" referred to might (as you mentioned above) not have been a written standard, or it might have been a Main Roads standard separate from any national standard. - Evad37 [talk] 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other question is how much precision should actually be used for these conversions? Is one significant figure appropriate given that these may be double conversions, due to being pre-1970? - Evad37 [talk] 01:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the accuracy of the numbers in the source can be presumed to be to the nearest 0.1 m, then should converted values be given to the nearest 1/3 of a foot? (0.1 m converts to 0.3281 ft or 3.937 in) - Evad37 [talk] 04:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted to The 1960s standard of a twenty-foot (6.2 m) sealed width with four-foot-wide (1.2 m) gravel shoulders for the moment, can be changed later if there is consensus for something else - Evad37 [talk] 04:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major intersections

[edit]

The major intersections table shows the same km/mi values for Eucla and Border Village - but Eucla is 11 or 12 km west of the border and Border Village is at or just east of the border. I suggest that Eucla ought be on a separate row to "Western Australia / South Australia border", because it is not at/on the border. Also that "National Highway 1 eastern terminus" and "National Highway A1 western terminus" ought to be in the same cell - presumably the two termini are the same point, ie A1 starts were 1 finished. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The locality of Eucla stretches all the way to the border (the townsite is just a small part). In Google maps: [2]; In Main Roads' Road Information Mapping System: [3] Click on Search in the left-hand column, click on Suburb/Locality, enter "Eucla" and push Find, click (or hover over) EUCLA to highlight it. I have combined the termini notes into one cell, as that does make sense. - Evad37 [talk] 23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The locality of Eucla stretches all the way to the border (the townsite is just a small part) — OK, but does Eucla, Western Australia (linked from the table) need rewording? It says, in the lead para and infobox, that Eucla is 11km from the border. This makes sense for the town, but not the locality (which is 60-100km wide) - and the article does start with "Eucla is [a] locality ...".
But then the (Eyre Highway) table is the only content of a section named "Major intersections". Surely the average reader would expect that the "Location" column in what appears to be a table of intersections in an article about a highway would be a specific Intersection (road) on the highway, not a 60km stretch through a locality. A specific intersection would also make more sense given the "Destinations" column.
You could change the column name to town/locality (some of them are towns), but that's ambiguous, because Eucla could be considered both - and I suspect that the average reader would see it as a town rather than a locality.
I suggest that a specific town or junction might be more useful to the reader than a locality.
I also notice that the Augusta Highway intersection is listed in Port Augusta, but according to Google Maps that intersection appears to be in the locality of Port Augusta West (west of the river, with Port August locality being east of the river) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
does Eucla, Western Australia (linked from the table) need rewording? Probably. It should at least mention the extents of the locality, even if much of the article focuses on the town.
Surely the average reader would expect that the "Location" column in what appears to be a table of intersections in an article about a highway would be a specific Intersection (road) on the highway, not a 60km stretch through a locality. Well, the state border is a significant feature that I think would be expected for interstate roads... and besides, there is the transition point between National Highways 1 and A1 that should be noted (that's sort of an intersection between the two road routes).
not a 60km stretch through a locality – Who's talking about a 60km stretch? The State / LGA / Location columns give context to the specific points listed in the km / mi / Destinations columns.
town/locality – not a very clear label, and wouldn't be usuable for highways that go into urban areas unless you had suburb/town/locality. Location covers all the possibilities succinctly (IIRC, some eastern states local governments use other terms such as "rural locality")
a specific town or junction might be more useful to the reader than a locality - specific towns can't always be given, significant features and intersections often occur between towns.
Augusta Highway intersection ... in the locality of Port Augusta West – fixed - Evad37 [talk] 07:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative presentation could be something like this:

StateLGALocationkmmiDestinationsNotes
Western AustraliaDundasNorseman00.0 Coolgardie–Esperance Highway (National Highway 94 north / National Route 1 south) – Coolgardie, Kalgoorlie, Perth, Esperance, AlbanyWestern highway terminus
State border720450Western Australia / South Australia borderNational Highway 1 eastern terminus, National Highway A1 western terminus
South AustraliaCedunaCeduna1,204748 Flinders Highway (B100) – Streaky Bay, Port Lincoln
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

But that has the state border noted twice, which seems redundant. - Evad37 [talk] 07:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you focus on the intersections, as opposed to the localities, there's one at Eucla (with a track heading south towards Eucla Airport) and another at Border Village (with a track heading north east). They're about 11 km apart. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The tracks aren't really "major intersections" though – at least not according to the maps cited in the Destinations columns heading in the article (using sources to make that determination is more objective than some wikipedians deciding on whether something is "major" enough). - Evad37 [talk] 00:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the "alternative presentation" table above, the "WA/SA border" in the Destinations column could probably be removed. In that context it makes no sense anyway - the state border (while obviously significant and needs to kept in the table) is not an "intersection" or junction to a road leading off the highway to some destination. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an empty cell would look good though. Maybe the National Highways note should span the Destination and Notes column - i.e.:
StateLGALocationkmmiDestinationsNotes
Western AustraliaDundasNorseman00.0 Coolgardie–Esperance Highway (National Highway 94 north / National Route 1 south) – Coolgardie, Kalgoorlie, Perth, Esperance, AlbanyWestern highway terminus
State border720450National Highway 1 eastern terminus, National Highway A1 western terminus
South AustraliaCedunaCeduna1,204748 Flinders Highway (B100) – Streaky Bay, Port Lincoln
1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi
- Evad37 [talk] 00:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the National Highways note should span the Destination and Notes column — Agreed. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eyre Highway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Ok you know the drill......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The highway was constructed between July 1941 and June 1942, but was trafficable by January 1942. - trafficable by what?
Is that really necessary? Surely in the context of a 20th century highway trafficable refers to vehicles? Note also that the source only describes it as trafficable without specifying by what. - Evad37 [talk] 00:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess trafficable can mean by any car or by some cars (such as 4WD only), but it is moot if source doesn't specify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point now, but as you say its moot due to the source not specifying - Evad37 [talk] 01:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
link saltbush
to the set index article saltbush, or is it reasonable to assume Atriplex? - Evad37 [talk] 00:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Atriplex is more accurate link. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Evad37 [talk] 01:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eyre Highway has a mixed performance in terms of road safety, compared to other major highways in Australia. - not sure this sentence adds anything. I'd let the two following sentences speak for themselves...
Removed - Evad37 [talk] 00:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
link limestone outcrops
Limestone or outcrop?
I think outcrop there - could link limestone separately there or make a case for IAR link at second mention a couple of sentences on to avoid run-on bluelinks of consecutive words. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with limestone linked at the second mention (avoiding consecutive links is actually in the MOS – WP:SEAOFBLUE) - Evad37 [talk] 01:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
link bitumen
Done - Evad37 [talk] 00:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a decade long program - hyphen?
Added - Evad37 [talk] 00:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, hang on.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Eyre Highway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eyre Highway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eyre Highway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect statement.

[edit]

The wik says that Eyre Highway is the only sealed road between WA & SA. I submit this should be "direct" sealed road, as it is possible to travel from WA to SA via the NT, on sealed roads all the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.162.106 (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eyre_Highway&oldid=1201883118"