Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

State Highway listings proposal

Ive taken the liberty of AUshielding the WA list of Highways: List of highways in Western Australia with some text for accessibility too.

While doing this (and a few others) Ive seen its clear we should come up with a guideline on how they should be displayed (I just chose something I think looked better than before), and how they are listed. The current system in use is quite arbitrary. I would suggest the following-

In non-alphanumeric states:

National Highways
National Routes (incl. ALT routes)
State Routes
Unshielded "Highways" (That are actually named as "<Foobar> Highway") - This is to include some important regional/remote roads.

All sorted by route number

In alphanumeric states:

National Highways (which may be relisted below in their appropriate sections) - if applicable (ie. skip for NSW/ACT)
M
A
B
C / D / Unshielded "Highways" (That are actually named as "<Foobar> Highway") - This is to include some important regional/remote roads.

Again sorted by route number

All duplexed roads should be listed in each applicable section, if duplexed in the same section (2x national allocations for example), generally the majority shield (by km) would be the one used to sort into the list.

Tourist Drives should have their own listings.

All other C and D level roads should not be mention (they are essentially regional and local roadways anyway).

ACT/Canberra: Fitting neither system, is currently operating on the following:

Controlled-access roadways
Limited-access roadways (but limited to dual-carriageways or suburb divider roads which are notable [all suburbs in canberra are split main roads from one another]).

Interchanges and Tourist Drives are listed due to different article name: Road infrastructure in Canberra

The problem with these pages is that there are multiple definitions of what a highway is, and it all varies by state. In WA a road can be named as a "highway", but not be a highway according to legislation. Or it can be the reverse, with what is technically a highway not named as a highway. And then it's further complicated by the route numbering shields, which may or may not be applied to these two types of "highways", plus may be applied to roads that are neither type of highway. And that's not to mention the differences in names between Main Road's internal classification and the names on street signs, as used by the general public.

While we should try to improve the lists, I don't think there's going to be an easy solution that fits all states. - Evad37 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Me either, and there may have to be specific provisions for each state. Im completely flexible on the unshielded routes, if people wish them gone completely, then so be it. I dont think that editors should be arbitrarily (within reason) deciding a roads status. For example you may wish in WA to just have shielded routes, and thats fine. Or perhaps change the name of the article aswell and develop a coherent system to keep the unshielded/non-highway routes routes.

Up until last night I had ACT sorted into Parkways (Freeways), named Highways, and other arterial roads. I figured that while reasonably accurate, I cant keep using that system as it isnt based on anything concrete. - Nbound (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I am happy to let this matter be, at least until we can get the infobox and shielding changes rolled out. But still its something to think about - Nbound (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Lists of road routes

Another related matter we should consider are lists of road routes, such as List of road routes in Western Australia. I updated it the table form last year, and included hidden HTML anchors next to each route. I found it very useful, being able to link directly to the relevant route from articles of roads in that route, including from the allocation section of the infobox. The other feature I created was a road routes navbox {{WA road routes}}, which allows easy navigation to articles on other roads within the same route, and direct links to each route on the page. - Evad37 (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Old and Uncommon variants of Freeway and Highway shields

This is of less importance than getting the current shields upto date. but it would be nice to get the older systems operational too, so they can be added to the appropriate sections of articles or where otherwise required (cancelled route articles for example). These should be considered low priority.

Re proposed usage: keep in mind the the second parameter is part of the filename, ie [[File:Route type {{{2}}}.svg]] (where {{{2}}} is the text entered to the second parameter. So for the proposed usage below, filenames would have to be something like Former Sydney route F3.svg, Former Sydney route RR3.svg, Former Melbourne Route F3.svg, Former Melbourne Route RR80.svg, AUS national highway ACT23.svg, which seems less than ideal. I'd rather have a few extra parameters, and include them in a separate section of the documentation. - Evad37 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Im all ears, let me know what you would prefer - Nbound (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest: Leave the old freeway routes as below; use SydRR and MelRR for ring roads; and use ACTN|23 instead of N|ACT23. This would allow filenames to be Former Sydney Freeway F#.svg, Former Sydney Ring Road #.svg, etc. - Evad37 (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done proposal changed - Nbound (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Created

All available icons are displayed at {{AUshield}}
For maintenance purposes all acceptible inputs can be deduced from {{AUshield/core}}.
Only use the recommended shield codes on the main AUshield page unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise.

Not yet created

Old Brisbane Freeway Routes: Imagery: mockup, real images would be much better

Unknown, presumably at least F-3

Proposed usage: {{AUshield|Bris|F3}}

Old Melbourne Freeway Routes: Imagery: super closeup, front on comparison to state shields

F80, F81, F82, F83, F87, F90, possibly others

Proposed usage: {{AUshield|Mel|F83}}

Your request here: Imagery: <link1> <link2> <etc.>

<shield numbers required>

Proposed usage: {{AUshield|<shield type>|<shield>}}

Participation in RfC:Infobox Road proposal

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal now posted, will be inviting those on wikipedia highways and australia to comment - Nbound (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the first day of the proposal has been a little (a lot) quiet, any ideas on how we can get people to comment. Surely its not a Sunday thing? -- Nbound (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! Rename to "roads"!

Hey! If you look at Category:Australia-related WikiProjects you'll see all the other, bigger, topics have a lower case topic name. I think this project should too, and it is better to get this right now before there's thousands of references to incorrectly cased pages and categories. Mark Hurd (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, there's no need for Roads to be in lowercase - its part of the title of this project, and therefore a proper noun. Also, there is precedent for the capital R: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Roads, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads - Evad37 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I concede that, but none(*) of those countries' category hierarchy have a uniform casing now. (*My computer's running slow at the moment -- I haven't actually checked all the countries, but the UK and US already fail.) Mark Hurd (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should follow the principle behind MOS:RETAIN: "In general, disputes over which ... variety to use ... are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive." - Evad37 (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Majura Parkway

Redone/cleaned up an existing article a fair bit today (compare previous: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majura_Parkway&oldid=545382908)...

Thoughts/ further improvements?
Use of the non-free logo justified?
Any ideas for a route map as I assume the image here (Page 3-4) is out of the question, as would be a trace?

Once initial roadway alignment works are completed and satellite images updated, then it can be traced by a project such as openstreetmap and reworked for inclusion here. But until then...

Likelyhood of being able to add in either of the pictures here?

Note: Applicable copyright notice for all above non-free material here: http://www.majuraparkway.act.gov.au/legal/copyright
Note 2: Solar Farm and Historical sections were moved to new articles.
Nbound (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts/ further improvements:
- The Route section is very short (and should probably be called "Route description") - try expanding with where it starts, what direction it goes in, what it passes along the way, where it ends.- Fixed - Nbound (talk)
- The lead contains many details not in the rest of the article - the article should be able to read without the lead (the main purpose of which is to introduce the topic and summarise the article)- Fixed - Nbound (talk)
- Intersections/Interchanges: Refs don't really belong in the section header, maybe introduce the table with a short sentence which can have with the refs at the end of it. Also, the table isn't WP:MOS compliant (specifically, MOS:RJL, MOS:BOLD, MOS:ITALIC, WP:COLOUR)... but I'll need to set up some templates before this can be easily rectified - Fixed - Nbound (talk)
Use of the non-free logo justified?
- Probably, but I'm not an expert on non-free image usage.
Any ideas for a route map...?
- Data from OpenStreetMap can be reused (licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0) - Not Accurate (Majura Parkway on OSM is only a very rough alignment) - Nbound (talk)
- Crop/modify File:Locator map Australian Capital Territory parkways.PNG (CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence) - Not Accurate (Doesnt actually follow alignment) - Nbound (talk)
- - Workaround - artists impression of alignment using a modified freely licensed image, full route to be added when OSM data updated. Have also externally link to Google Maps if readers wish to follow my route description there - Nbound (talk)
Likelyhood of being able to add in those pictures
- Unlikely, as it would fail WP:NFCCP #1. However, you can link to them using {{external media}}, or include the link to the gallery in the external links section. - Added to external links - Nbound (talk)

The article is definitely much better than before you started working on it, and I hope you continue to do so - Evad37 (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Evad37, will definately continue my work on it, will be re-doing as many of Canberra's arterial roads as I can (My goal is to get as many of them as I can to B class status [or better]). I will make your suggested improvements in the coming hours/days. If anyone else has any additions to Evad's, Im all ears :). Nbound (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now created {{ACTint}}, which will help with creating a MOS:RJL-compliant junction list. Let me know if you need any help with it. - Evad37 (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done - Nbound (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

After browsing that, I dont know how well suited it is to the purpose. Ill explain further under a different thread once Ive gotten this article upto scratch. :) - Nbound (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Your ideas (excluding junction list), have been fixed, let me know what you think. - Nbound (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I intend to take a look and reply later today or tonight. - Evad37 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I just corrected the section order (External links goes after the References per the MOS) and inserted links to the portals in the See also section. Based on my experience with the articles on the highways in Michigan, Portal:Michigan Highways has been consistently in the top 10 or top 20 most viewed pages for the state's highways since I put a portal link in the see also section of every article. Maybe in the future WP:AURD will set up its own portal, but for now we should be driving potential page views to our portals. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Imzadi1979, much appreciated :) - Nbound (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Good effort - I have reassessed the article as C-class and Mid-importance (per our assessment page), though it is probably close to B-Class. The main issue I see is the junction list (which we're discussing in the thread below), but some more ideas to improve the article:

Try to expand or combine short paragraphs (those with only 1 or 2 sentences) - Largely Fixed - Nbound (talk)
the lead is probably a bit short - probably needs more details from the history section - Not sure what I could add that would pad it out without being overly verbose - Nbound (talk)
"These can be accessed via the external video links to the right" troubles me. First, this isn't always accurate, as the display differs for different screen widths, and is different in mobile view, and the phrase is meaningless for printed versions of the page. Secondly, the external videos box is actually quite prominent - people are likely to cast their eyes towards it before reaching this sentence. A possible alternative to removing it entirely is referencing the previous sentence to a government website that links to these videos.- Added references, left ext media box intact - Nbound (talk)
Use {{wide image}} template for the big image - will be more accessible for those with small screens- Fixed - Nbound (talk)

- Evad37 (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyeidt Evad, ive further modified the junction list in the same vein as your edits. A later editor removed the "rural area" locations, I wonder the thoughts of editors here, Id prefer to keep it if the rest of you beleive its use is ok (I have reverted it for the time being), I feel some location is better than a blank box? [The ACT hasnt divided that particular area below district level]. Evad is it necessary to have the airport icon next to the Monaro Highway shield, it would be better next to Pialligo Rd as its the only one of those roads that gets anywhere near it (I have also changed this back to Pialligo Rd while I was there) - If this violates junction listing rules, I will happily change it back. - Nbound (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

MOS:RJL does actually have specific guidance on these issue:

"Location: The municipality or equivalent within which the junction lies, whether it be a town, city, or village. If the location is indeterminable, or if the junction lies in unincorporated territory, this should be left blank"

and

"Route marker graphics should always appear at the beginning of the line, per the principle behind Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Do not use icons in general article prose: "Icons should not be used in the article body...This breaks up the continuity of the text, distracting the reader.""

(same principle applies to airport/hospital/etc graphics)

Also, if the chainage begins at Monaro Hwy, why is it at the bottom of the table? - Evad37 (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

All sorted (table flipped, edits reinstated), I also put the airport shield before the B23 shield (was previously between B23 and Monaro Highway). Reads a bit better now. - Nbound (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone mind having a look and seeing what else can be improved - still aiming for that B-class (or higher) status. - Nbound (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(sorry about the delay in replying, just saw this today). If you feel the article meets the general B-class criteria and the AURD additional criteria, then you can assess it as such. If you're looking for additional comments, you could try Wikipedia:Peer review (there used to be a WP:HWY specific one, but its inactive now and marked as historical). If you're looking for additional ideas (ie examples of good lead sections, etc.), you could check out our GAs (there's now three of them!) and roads listed in featured transport articles. - Evad37 (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Im usually fairly hesistant upgrading the quality level on pages where Im the main or sole contributor - Its now been put up for peer review :) - Nbound (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Shield discussions

NSW/ACT Alphanumeric Shields

Id like to propose we stop using the alphanumeric shields provided by Bidgee as can be seen here on Wikimedia Commons. And replace them with something closer to what actually appears on the signs:

image

or

image 2

(images source: http://expressway.paulrands.com/ )
The source website has images like what i would prefer: here.
Bidgee's images are based off the promotional ones used on the RMS website here

Thoughts/issues? -- Nbound (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If agreed, it would then be good to add the new images to the AU shield generator template. - Nbound (talk)

I agree that the images should be as close to the actual usage as possible, or at the very least be consistent across the whole set of NSW/ACT alphanumeric routes (one reason why I haven't added them to the {{AUshield}} template). I did raise the issue previously at WP:AUS, it is now archived here. A quick summary would be:

The routes needed are:

M1 M2 M4 M5 M7 M23 M31 A1 A2 A3 A4 A6 A8 A9 A15 A20 A22 A23 A25 A28 A32 A34 A36 A37 A38 A39 A40 A41 A43 A44 A49 B23 B51 B52 B53 B55 B56 B57 B58 B59 B60 B62 B63 B64 B65 B69 B70 B71 B72 B73 B74 B75 B76 B78 B79 B81 B83 B84 B85 B87 B88 B91 B94 B95

It would be desirable to create a "full range" including routes not yet planned to be used so that we're ready for future route upgrades or additional routes
The outside green border is actually part of the sign, not the shield. However, including such a border allows the white outline to show up against a white/light coloured background
Official documentation/standards on the dimensions (such as this for US interstates) has not been found
Vector graphics (SVG) should be used rather than raster graphics (PNG)
The commons:User:Highway Route Marker Bot will be able to make all the shields we need, if we can provide it with an example svg template, and a font to use

- Evad37 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The font is available from roadgeek sources IIRC. - Nbound (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Theres a few available but Im not sure which is it (ill knock up a few in the coming days when I get time - or someone can beat me to it?).

I agree we should keep the green beyond the border, we may even decide to eventually put "sign green" sections at the top of RJLs or infoboxes.

We dont need official standards (though it would be nice), we should just be able to get the specs from the trace of a half decent photo (the shields themselves are likely to simple to be covered by copyright anyway).

Vector graphics should be used whenever possible, even beyond this particular discussion, so agreed there.

Nbound (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Im unable to get the font looking right, anyone else want to give it a shot? - Nbound (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can look at it. Is there a standard drawing out there for the big green signs? That may give us a clue for what proportions we need. –Fredddie ™ 23:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And honestly, once we get the proportions figured out, I can have them done and uploaded within an hour. MUCH faster than HRMB. –Fredddie ™ 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no standard drawings available yet. Only pictures of real life installations. The pictures at the top of this thread have both the 2 and 3 character versions, and you can likely find closer version on the same site (Note: These images are copyrighted, though I doubt using them for approximate sizing is affected). There are images onsite which they have made themselves, which are likely too simple to be eligible for copyright (eg. http://expressway.paulrands.com/images/routenumbers/nswalphas/m31.png - though the two character version has incorrect sizing, and the outer white area would preferably be an alpha channel, it also would be much preferred to be an SVG render) - Nbound (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with Australian Highways, I can try and find better example pictures. Just let me know - Nbound (talk)

Actually, there are these photos [1] [2] of drawings for specific signs, which someone apparently found stuck on the rear of a couple of signs. The image quality isn't great, but you might be able to make out the numbers (of course, those are only the proportions for two digit alphanumeric routes). And there are galleries with many photos on that website: [3] and [4] - Evad37 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Very nice! Well, I worked this out, so let me refactor now that we have some measurements. –Fredddie ™ 00:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

How's this? [5] –Fredddie ™ 01:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Great find Evad, i had been browsing official papers for some time looking for just that. It might just be me but the white border looks a little too big, compare its size to the width of the 1. - Nbound (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hrm. I read the height of the sign was 320mm and inside the border measured 247mm. That makes it a 36.5mm border. The font is standard FHWA Series D. Since there was no measurement for the height of the letters, I took a ruler and found that it was half the height of the outer border. That's great because numbers are half as tall as the sign is a standard here in the US. It could just be an illusion since we're just looking at the number plate and not the whole sign. –Fredddie ™ 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is 247 the inside height, or just the height of the arrow next to it? It looks to me that the border width is (approximately) the same width as the leg of the "1" - Evad37 (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine the route marker would have its own subtemplate, and that this is just providing the dimensions that said subtemplate is to be sized as in this instance. It would make sense for the arrow (presumably its own subtemplate, to have its own measurement aswell. It can also be seen that there is no measurement on the bottom axis for the letters, further suggesting that its for the arrow, which does have its own measurements on the bottom axis. - Nbound (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look carefully, one of the drawings says the border is 24x24, which I am guessing the white border is 24mm and the edge to the white border measures 24mm. I'll recalculate and repost. –Fredddie ™ 03:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

[6] –Fredddie ™ 04:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me :) - Nbound (talk)

OK, I will start making them soon. What file nomenclature would you like me to use? –Fredddie ™ 04:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Something like "NSW alphanumeric route <route>.<extension>"... or for your pre-existing example: "NSW alphanumeric route B81.<extension>". Will the final results be SVG or PNG as your test uploads so far have been (SVG would be preferred for ease of future editing). A blank shield for both 2 and 3 character sized shield would be nice too. - Nbound (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

SVG definitely. Inkscape lets me export to PNG, which is faster and easier for uploading to Imageshack. Will do blanks as well. –Fredddie ™ 04:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for helping us out! - Nbound (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Done commons:Category:Diagrams of New South Wales alphanumeric route markers –Fredddie ™ 05:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Added to {{AUshield}}:

- Evad37 (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

M1 and A1 are bigger than the other 2 character markers, is this meant to be the case? (I havent seen enough in the flesh yet to be sure). Regardless, good work, I like them :) - Nbound (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll need an M15 one for the Hunter Expressway, though unless you are feeling generous Fredddie, we can knock that one up when required.

All the shields with a 1 in them look bigger than other shields.... - Nbound (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's because I removed the extra green space around the number, but if you look at the files, they are all the same height (or should be). So, if you put them all in a row at the same height (as seen in the {{AUshield}} example above), they will all be the same height. –Fredddie ™ 05:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Compare

(M15 is widened by me as it was missing anyway), as far as I am aware, there are only two sizes. But others may have information otherwise - Nbound (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Further digging shows you are correct so disregard above: http://www.ozroads.com.au/NSW/Special/MAB/388.jpg - Nbound (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

M15 now normal size - Nbound (talk)

Good thinking with the separate ACT selection (which is atm coded as if NSW was typed), never know if one day the ACT will go out on its own and stuff things up, so will save time if we all use the ACT prefix if the part of road or junction in question is within the ACT -- Nbound (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to update the files I uploaded last night because of the color specifications posted below. I originally used the green and yellow colors from the US MUTCD, but now that I know the values for Australia, it's a simple find-and-replace. –Fredddie ™ 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work on the state shields, what reason was there for the reversions previously anyway - the colours are clearly wrong compare to every one Ive seen or seen photos of? Is this how we ended up with a "Queensland State Shield" in AUshield? - Nbound (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

See commons:User_talk:Bidgee/Archive11#Route_Shields regarding the previous reversions. The reason {{AUshield}} had a separate Queensland State Shield is that I coded the template the last year, I based it on how images were being used in the articles. The shields were created way before I started editing Wikipedia: the light-blue SVGs date back to 2006, while the PNGs used in QLD articles date back to 2007. - Evad37 (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

State Routes

While were redoing shields, can we take a look at the state shields? They were actually (mostly) updated by Outrune to a more accurate version last year, but that was quickly reverted - see example file history. You could also start from scratch, as it is basically the same design as a US interstate shield, but without the top part that says INTERSTATE. 1, 2, and 3 digit routes all use the same size shield, with the text size adjusted. The routes required (based off what is currently uploaded to commons) are:

Single digit: 1 to 9
Two digits: 10 to 99
Three digits: 100, 102, 104, 106, 107, 111, 112, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 141, 149, 151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 168, 174, 180, 181, 182, 186, 188, 191, 195

I will have a look around to see if there are any standards drawings to show number height or font - Evad37 (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Haven't found anything usable yet, at least not freely available. The road authorities websites I've tried all point to Australian Standards AS1742 and/or AS1743, which are very expensive. - Evad37 (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I did find it for considerably less. –Fredddie ™ 03:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

NSW has some basic specs here: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?fuseaction=trafficsigns.show&id=g8/g8-8

Actually, I think I may be able to access the standards through my university's library... I'll check later today - Evad37 (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Evad37, we have the specifications. I am thinking about uploading to a new name just so we can avoid the reversions Outrune faced. I'm going to use "AUS state route <num>.svg" unless we want to bite the bullet and overwrite. –Fredddie ™ 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, colours specified by the standard are defined as

Red — Colour R13 Signal Red

#BA312B

Yellow — Colour Y15 Sunflower

#FFA709

Brown — Colour X65 Dark Brown

#4F372D

Blue — Colour B23 Bright Blue

#174F90

Standard Green — Colour G12 Holly Green

#336745

Green — Colour G13 Emerald

#195F35

You can the corresponding rgb/html values from this company's website - Evad37 (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Done commons:Category:Diagrams of Australian state route markers –Fredddie ™ 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Added to {{AUshield}} -
Usage:

{{AUshield|SR|<route number>}}

I have left both S and QS for the time being, but it might be worth switching the output of both to SR. Docs have been updated to add SR, with and additional ~~strikethrough~~ across S and QS. -- Nbound (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the code so that S, QS, and SR all output the new design - there is no point in encouraging the use of the old, inaccurate designs. If there was a real need to use them (which I can't imagine), they can could always be inserted into articles manually. - Evad37 (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

ACT Tourist Routes

Evad (or anyone), can you add my ACT Tourist Route images to AUShield while we are doing shields. I had a go and broke it (all reverted - dont worry). You'll see what I was attempting to do in the edit history. - Nbound (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed -

. I will now update the documentation. - Evad37 (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Evad :) - Nbound (talk)

Shield To-Dos

Please add any shields missing, that you find in NSW articles:

...
...

...and whoever has a bit of spare time and talent can go through the list and create as required. -- Nbound (talk)

~~A48 Illawarra Highway (Illawarra)~~
~~B68 John Renshaw Drive (Hunter Valley)~~
~~B82 Wine Country Drive (Hunter Valley)~~

The three listed above are being added with my color update. –Fredddie ™ 16:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fredddie - Nbound (talk)

If you are still working on them, disregard this: There are a few shields which have the old colouring still.

Some of the thumbs are taking a while to update (esp. B23), guess thats just a waiting game though.

Nbound (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything has been uploaded, but you are correct. It takes time for the servers to catch up. If you click on the individual files in the category, they should render correctly. –Fredddie ™ 23:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

National routes and highways

Do you want to do anything with these? I'm referring to these styles: Both of these were on the same sheet Evad37 sent to me, so I can easily knock them out. –Fredddie ™ 17:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont personally, but, others might... - Nbound (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I do think we should do the national routes, so we can get them all having the same font and size, as well as all being in svg format. I think we should also do the national highway ones, and have accurate images. Alphanumeric national highway shields use a modified design - I haven't come across any standards for them, but there is any example image on page 34 of VicRoad's Traffic engineering manual (Ch 10), and you can see the actual usage in photos such as [7]. - Evad37 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair points, in which case, we probably should! - Nothing on the QLD MR website (which also uses the alphanumeric nationals) btw. - Nbound (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Queensland, actually is missing its A markers on {{AUshield}} (and i havent personally checked the accuracy of the M marker, but it is meant to be different to VIC/SA/TAS). We should look into creating (or linking if accurate ones exist) this set at some point too... - Nbound (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I just need a list of numbers to get started. I have a template ready for highways and routes. I'd have to do a little more work to get the alphanumeric national highways. –Fredddie ™ 02:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

National routes

1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48, 52, 55, 56, 58, 66, 71, 75, 78, 79, 80, 83, 96
ALT 1, ALT 23, ALT 94

National highways

1, 8, 15, 16, 20, 23, 25, 31, 38, 39, 54, 66, 71, 85, 87, 94, 95
A1, A2, A8, A13, A15, A16, A17, A20, A39, A87
M1, M8, M20, M31, M39, M80

- Evad37 (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ill compile a list of QLD alphanumeric M and A route shields required later today - Nbound (talk)

OK, It's nearing bedtime here, so I'll work on them tomorrow. –Fredddie ™ 03:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No woriess Freddie :)

Queensland will also have some National alphanumeric highways to redo (eg. National Route A15 - see New England Highway) so it might be best we put this off until they are all collated in the next day or so - Nbound (talk)

I've added some numbers to the lists above, based on files with the same naming structure ([8]) - Evad37 (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Any Queenslanders able to confirm the markings used here are standard? http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/busind/techstdpubs/Manual%20of%20Uniform%20Traffic%20Control%20Devices/MutcdAmend3Part15Directioninfoandroute.pdf - Nbound (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Or did they stop before they got to finishing the A routes...

Might also be worth checking if VIC/SA/TAS is meant to have the space between letter and number.

Nbound (talk)

Looking at photos such as [9] (VIC), [10] (SA), [11] (TAS), it seems that spaces aren't used between letters and numbers - Evad37 (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... hopefully we can redo them all and get rid of all those categories and just use a single code for the lot. - Nbound (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Was reading through the specs for national highway shields in the ACT, they are mean to go without the "National" line at the top, Id seen both types here so figured without it was old or something. Im happy to go with the current ones until alphanumeric switchover anyway. Will put them down in the bottom section to be done at some future point in time. - Nbound (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done commons:Category:Diagrams_of_Australian_national_route_markers and commons:Category:Diagrams_of_Australian_national_highway_markers –Fredddie ™ 23:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Done Added to {{AUshield}} -
Works as before, except Ive requested the alt highways names be changed on commons, specifically so "1 ALT" becomes "ALT1", and so on. Once this is changed it will work as below:

{{AUshield|R|ALT23}}

When the changes have occured I will update the docs. and implement a fix for AR to redirect to the new names, so we dont lose any old shields (there probably isnt many/any using AUshield anyway). - Nbound (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone already got it. I do have file-renaming rights on Commons, just so you're aware. –Fredddie ™ 00:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

They sure are fast!

- Nbound (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And in the old AR syntax:

- Nbound (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a moment. Is there a picture of an ALT shield? Further down on the specification I have, it shows an alt banner modification. It's similar to how an ALT sign would be added on to a shield here in the states, but it's one piece. –Fredddie ™ 00:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right... [12] [13] [14]. Google streetview shows the same for ALT94 in WA. - Evad37 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

General signage

Found this in my travels... could be useful in future: http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/busind/techstdpubs/Manual%20of%20Uniform%20Traffic%20Control%20Devices/MUTCDsignsposterApril2012.pdf Nbound (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Tourist drives

The design for the tourist drives can also be improved using the standard, and I know there are several missing shields for WA routes. - Evad37 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Here's the list (WA and others):

1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 40, 42, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360

Thats a WA only list so far... correct? May as well do all routes in other states while we are here... Thankfully Im pretty sure NSW doesnt skip route numbers, so should be easy enough if we can find highest number. - Nbound (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

NSW has 56 tourist roads on the books, Ive seen images of numbers at least as high as 30.... but 56 is in SA, which means Im wrong. Should we just do 1-99 + extras? - Nbound (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the WA ones are the 2xx and 3xx routes. TD2 is in Victoria, others came from this page for NSW and this page for QLD. I haven't found any information regarding other tourist drives. - Evad37 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The TD pages there definately dont list all routes perhaps a range of 1-50 or 1-60 though most numbers below 40ish are coming up with google image search hits. - Nbound (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The ones above 50ish seem to be in SA - Nbound (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

TD75 is in Victoria [15]. And TDs 61, 62, 63, 67 are around Echuca, Victoria. (6MB pdf - Spam filter is blocking the link). I don't think there's anything prevent states from using the same numbers for tourist drives, it just seems to happen much less often than with the state routes. - Evad37 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There would almost have to be, if NSW does have 56 in total (minus specially shield routes), and you would imagine reasonably similar numbers in VIC (even minus the ones that got alpha numeric routes), and not too far off in QLD. Though im pretty sure the 3-digit ones will be WA only -- Nbound (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should go with your idea above, so:

Routes required: 1 to 99, 200 to 207, 250 to 259, 350 to 360.

We create more later if required. - Evad37 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) -- Nbound (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

ACT tourist routes

The ACT ones could do with correct font, and possibly work on the proportions (seems pretty close though). Examples: TD5 (Solid Border Type) TD4 (Fancy Border Type) Nbound (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the colour specifications here [16] (page 30):

Table 7-1: Tourist Drive Sign Colours
Drive	Vinyl Colour	ECF Colour	Numeral Colour	RGB
1	Satin Gold	No Equivalent	Black	#726038
2	Burgundy	No Equivalent	White	#561511
3	Peacock Blue	No Equivalent	~~White~~ Black	#5A99E0
4	Royal Purple	Violet 1170-13	White	#391D50
5	Bright orange	Orange 1174	Black	#F64F01
6	Satin Aluminium	No Equivalent	Black	#7C838D
7	Sunflower	Yellow 1171	~~White~~ Black	#FDC800

- Evad37 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The text colour section of the table is incorrect. White on sunflower, or white on light blue... TAMS has done it again... haha -- Nbound (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

TD3 Black on Blue - Nbound (talk)

Turns out they did stuff it up the way it is in the table at one stage! TD3 WHITE on Blue

Corrected in above table - Evad37 (talk)

Thanks :) - Nbound (talk)

and added rgb codes for them, based a PDF catalogue of vinyl colour samples from [17] - Evad37 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Satin Alumininum is too dark TD6 TD6(2). I had based mine off an actual white one I'd seen, but ill go with the lighter satin aluminium. All the rest of your colours appear to be good improvements. - Nbound (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Satin Aluminium looks too dark. Should the new files be square with a pentagon overlaid (like the pictures Nbound posted the next line up) or just the pentagon? –Fredddie ™ 22:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Both are used, the pentagon type is the one used on most signage, the other one is just used on trailblazers, I would prefer the pentagon type. -- Nbound (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a search for Satin Aluminium (interestingly aluminum and aluminium gave me vastly different results) and I kinda like this color: #eef1f3. It is 25% lighter than "Volkswagen Satin Silver". –Fredddie ™ 23:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good - Nbound (talk)

Metroads

These seem pretty much upto scratch, but if the specs are in the AS, may as well check and fix if required -- Nbound (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No specs in the AS, probably because they were limited to Sydney and Brisbane, though they could still be remade as SVGs, and recoloured using the blue from the standard - Evad37 (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Found specs from Queensland: [18], page 37 - Evad37 (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Routes requires: 1 to 10

Done commons:Category:Diagrams of Australian Metroad markers –Fredddie ™ 01:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Added to {{AUshield}}

. Usage as previous - Nbound (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Alphanumeric routes for other states

Just starting a new section here, noting that these should also be redone. About half of them are currently PNGs, and lettering, spacing, colours vary between them. - Evad37 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Would these be in the same style as the NSW alphanumerics? –Fredddie ™ 02:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Similar, but without the white outline, and I think the font series varies with the number of digits, as per the national highway shields. I'll see if I can find any specs. - Evad37 (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Or they might use the same font for each route number, based on some of the photos I've looked at, eg [19]

The QLD document linked above ([20]) has the font as series E (page 56). There is no specific guidance on spacing required around around the text - maybe measure the (inside) spacing dimensions from Figure 4.3 G8-11-2 (free standing reassurance marker) on page 59?

Aside from the font, G8-11-2 looks a lot like the NSW alphanumericals, doesn't it? –Fredddie ™ 04:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but only NSW uses the outline on their directional signs, as well free-standing markers - Evad37 (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. When I get around to doing these, I'll probably give them rounded corners like the NSW signs. They'll look better that way. –Fredddie ™ 04:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats sounds fair enough, with an alpha channel background like NSW too im guessing - Nbound (talk)

M routes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 79, 80, 420, 780

A routes: 1, 2, 2 (ALT)¹, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 52, 55, 66, 71, 79, 87, 200, 300, 420, 440, 780, 790

B routes: 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 91, 96 100, 101, 110, 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 201, 210, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300, 320, 324, 326, 327, 340, 360, 380, 400, 410, 420, 460, 500

C routes: 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16, 24, 80 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 111, 114, 115, 118, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 156, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 179, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 203, 206, 207, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 227, 231, 234, 236, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252, 256, 453, 255, 256, 257, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 271, 272, 273, 274, 277, 283, 283, 285, 287, 291, 292, 294, 296, 301, 305, 307, 311, 312, 313, 314, 314, 316, 317, 318, 320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 351, 352, 353, 355, 357, 358, 359, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 370, 371, 373, 374, 376, 377, 378, 381, 382, 383, 384, 391, 402, 404, 405, 407, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421, 422, 424, 425, 426, 431, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 441, 442, 444, 452, 453, 454, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 462, 463, 464, 469, 473, 475, 476, 476, 478, 482, 483, 484, 485, 496, 501, 505, 506, 507, 508, 511, 512, 515, 516, 518, 521, 522, 523, 527, 528, 529, 531, 533, 534, 536, 537, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 607, 608, 615, 616, 701, 702, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 729, 739, 743, 754, 777, 781, 782, 783, 784, 787, 788, 789, 791, 792, 793, 794, 798, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805

D routes: 83, 95, 96

Notes: ¹ALT A2

I would like to suggest that we either combine all of these into a single switch (eg.{{AUshield|AN|C123}}), alternatively we may also wish to use individual states as we have with NSW/ACT, which will (at this stage), all link to the one set of images (eg.{{AUshield|VIC|C123}}). Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any advantage to having extra switch values such as VIC? While technically easy to code, I would think that simpler is usually better. If the files are named appropriately, we could even just use S for both standard state route shields and alphanumeric markers. - Evad37 (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

From a management view it makes any future change easier to manage. No need to redo every affected AUshield, just recode the state and you are set. - Nbound (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that NT is also partway switched to alphanumeric. page pic - Nbound (talk)

I am currently in the process of challenging the validity of D-class route marker images, as Im fairly certain they dont exist in the real world. - Nbound (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Australian road code updates

This message is to let anyone who wasn't aware know that there is a proposal to upgrade the code for {{Infobox Australian road}} currently underway. The proposal includes a number of completely optional functionality enhancements and some very minor layout changes but otherwise, the code is 100% backward compatible with the existing version of the template. The code has been built from code recently and successfully incorporated into {{Infobox Australian place}}. If you'd like to join the discussion, even if it's just to ask a question, please click here. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Motorway

Can somebody have a look at Pacific Motorway (New South Wales)? It was a redirect to Sydney–Newcastle Freeway but it has now become an article about two Pacific Motorways in NSW, the second being a section of the Pacific Highway from Ewingsdale to the Queensland border. Apparently this section is being renamed, but we now have a situation where NSW has two Pacific Motorways, 645km from each other and we need to find the best way to manage this. I don't thing the current article is the best way to do that. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Find a descriptor that accurately identifies both and rename the pages. The northern section is basically an extension of the Pacific Motorway in Queensland, and could be merged with that article.

This could be as simple as:

Pacific Motorway (Northern)
Pacific Motorway (Southern)

But there is porbably better descriptors.

We shouldnt merge these into the Pacific Highway article as the Pacific Highway is a completely different and separate road between Newcastle and Sydney.

Nbound (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This will need to be be sorted sooner or later, discussion resurrected at: Talk:Sydney–Newcastle_Freeway#Move_proposals -- Nbound (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Group Initiative: Working Bee

Just an idea:

One roadway is chosen every week (with a particular focus on stub and start class articles).
State/Territory is rotated every week.
Member who chooses the road cycles through the member list.

(Obviously need a way of accounting for those who may not be here on their week). Other timeframes could also be used like fortnights or months.

Voluntary of course (opt-out)

For/Against/Different proposal?

-- Nbound (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could alternate between start/stub articles and C/B class articles. It would be nice to get more GAs (and a GA in every state is in fact one of the goals on the project page). It might also be possible to do some in collaboration with WP:TAFI. - Evad37 (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable. It might even be worth having two, one as getting an article off the ground (beyond stub/start). And the other more as lets get this article to standard (get it to at least a good B, but preferably above). A longer time frame would be better with two articles, but it could be handy in that there could be two different states. Giving editors with state particular specialisations a bit more choice. What did you have in mind for TAFI? -- Nbound (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

With regards to TAFI, I thought we could nominate some articles there, and if any are successful, schedule them to appear as our collaboration of the week/fortnight (or whatever we end up calling this) at the same time as at TAFI. It might be better to nominate more general articles there, such as Highways in Australia or Clearway, rather than articles on specific roads. - Evad37 (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Could work, as long they will appear at least semi-regularly. Otherwise it may upto WP:AURD members. -- Nbound (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You probably want to make sure that everyone feels that they have something to contribute to the selected article. We tried this in the US several years ago (see WP:USRD/AID), and it failed because nobody cared about roads not in their own state and thus nobody worked on the collaboration. Perhaps Australia's more cohesive as a country though, so it might be different there. Just my 2 cents. --Rs chen 7754 08:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we are pretty cohesive, if you forget the time that WA tried to secede, and the more general mutual dislike the states maintain for each other! :D ;)

I personally am happy to contribute to articles in all states, but perhaps there is a good point in what Rs chen 7754 is saying. It might be worth starting with national articles and list articles, before working down to individual roads. Interestingly enough, this would line up reasonably well with AURD's importance measure. Some multi-state roads [ Highway 1 (Australia)? ] could be done at the same time as the list/national articles. If the working bee idea is a success on these we could then try state-by-state rotating roads. If we ever get enough members, each state could run their own article for improvement every month or so. -- Nbound (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

AUshielding conversions

Rather than implement continuous {{AUshield}}ing conversions on all affected articles to bring them upto AS1743 (in most cases) or just more realistic markers. Is it possible we can use file redirects and link the other images to the correct ones. Aushielding should and would still occur, but can be at a more relaxed pace (given the multiple roads discussions in progress already, im sure most here have little time right now for conversions). AUshielding will still provide a large maintenance benefit for future changes in shielding. It is my understanding that many of the original images were reverted and protected after another editor updated theam earlier (probably as he didnt state why his version was "improved"), so perhaps this isnt an option and the conversions should take place on an article by article basis, as they have so far. Thoughts? (Dont particularly mind either way, just an idea of a way which might be easier) -- Nbound (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have access to the AS 1743-2001 : Road signs - Specifications, I'll need to take a look to make sure it is correct. Though the new NSW alpha-numeric signs shouldn't have been re-done. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

For what reason? (in regards to NSW) -- Nbound (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Would the proposed file redirects be here on en.wikipedia or on commons?
The relevant pages of AS 1743-2001 are 202 to 207
I see no reason not to use the more accurate graphics that have recently been created - Evad37 (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It (NSW alpha-numeric shields) has been done based on OR on road signs (I've seen a few that are so wrong that the alpha-numeric has been covered back over with a plate with the old NATIONAL route shield). Bidgee (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Evad - On commons would be best IMHO, thats where they are all located at this stage AFAIK.
Bidgee - Copying a layout from a sign does not constitute OR, its pretty much the opposite, you are basing it on a published source. Regardless, there were other sources aswell. [21] [22]. Which were used to refine the images further. What is clear at this point is there are no real-world examples of the promotional images used on the RMS roadnumbers website, and hundreds of examples of the "re-done" design.

Im assuming you arent aware (I dont know if this is the case), but most NSW alphanumerics are currently coverplated in exactly the way you suggest, to allow a quick rollout (they have been planning this for years - almost all new signs within the last few years have been "alpha-ready"), they wont be coverplated by the end of the year.

Nbound (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just like your knowledge of copyright, you have no idea what you're talking about. The signs have to be redone since the sizing/colour isn't per the RMS' requirements (not yet documented in the AS), roll-out started a few months ago. Again, the design based on road signs is OR. Bidgee (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... Lets just keep to the topic at hand. The sizing is done per the diagrams, and per real world examples. Colour is per existing colours used by existing signs, but can be changed in light of new evidence, for example a newer revision of the standard. If these new images are OR, and therefore shouldnt be used, then what of all the existing images that arent AS, and have persisted for quite some time (and also warranted protection)? -- Nbound (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry but your actions elsewhere have me questioning your actions, which also apply here. Best diagram for the alpha-numeric sheilds we have is from the RMS' website. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore Wikipedia policy states: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. - Unless the contention is that these images introduce unpublished ideas or arguments (such as a contentious graph might) - Then its clear that WP:OR doesnt apply anyway. - Nbound (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Road signs are considered as unpublished. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds? Please clarify your statements so that the veracity of them can be checked. And regardless, they do not introduce an unpublished idea or argument, which is what the policy actually states. - Nbound (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Typical armchair lawyer statement. Really not going to waste my time with your stupid arguments. Bidgee (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Under US copyright law, simple text (like M1 or A25) is not copyrightable because it is just that – simple. Drawing a border around it does not make it any less simple, so they are in the public domain. –Fredddie ™ 12:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Want to check your facts again? Where did I say they were copyrighted? Bidgee (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My facts are right. My point is OR or not, they are PD. –Fredddie ™ 12:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping I didn't have to do this but where did I say that they were copyrighted? Bidgee (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You did not specifically say they were copyrighted; but you did mention someone's knowledge of copyrights, I interpreted it to mean the files' copyrights were in question. For that I apologize. –Fredddie ™ 22:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps its time we all consider a more formal approach, such as dispute resolution, a other opinions such as via the no original research noticeboard? - Nbound (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So you can forum shop and hope for more favourable "support" for your rush to change everything to suit the US Roads, who will then ignore us after it is done. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What do NSW alphanumeric shields have to do with US roads? Both of the methods i mentioned are official ways of helping to discuss issues, hardly "forum shopping". See here -- Nbound (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone wish to propose the deletion of the newer images, or their complete removal from wikipedia articles? There isnt any point discussing them here if nothing is likely to come of it. If noone is forthcoming with such a proposal, then perhaps discussion can continue along the original vein until such time as someone does. - Nbound (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Further to this I have asked for comment at the no original research noticeboard. Lets put this WP:OR claim to rest. - Nbound (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You're never going to get a clear view there, since it is all opinion on WP:NOR/N. I have the documents but really not worth helping out, since US Roads highjacked Australian roads. Bidgee (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You cant make unilateral assertions that something is WP:OR without evidence as such. Your opinion is also just an opinion, and so far, its only one claiming WP:OR. I will reiterate that the policy largely doesnt apply to images. If there is an argument to be made on your side, then make it. Otherwise leave the thread in peace. -- Nbound (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The below is in reply to Bidgee's post below: "Your aggressive forcing..." -- Nbound (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already removed myself from the IR RfC a little while back, I am currently helping AussieLegend further improve IAusR over on its talk page and have stated its possible I would vote against the RfC. I wont be rejoining the RfC at any point to prevent any potential WP:COI if I do choose to vote against it either. Hell you may not even be aware that I shared reservations about US control of IR at one stage of the early debate too (halfway down before subtopics). You have been far too quick to make assumptions during this whole process (This quote of you is pre-RfC even starting). Now, it seems pretty clear to me that for whatever reason, that you dont like me, and thats fine, not everyone is going to get along, but it shouldnt affect the day-to-day running of the Wikiproject (Im going to gladly drop this if there is no support - but so far the discussion has been focused on a largely unrelated argument concerning WP:OR). Unfortunately, you may have to learn to let go, the encyclopedia content isnt owned by any editor, and if the mob wants to change, they will, whether you like it, or not. They'll also do things whether I like it or not. A good philosophy is just to not give a fuck, in the long run the encyclopedia will always improve, one way or another. Your decision to no longer contribute your photos is a petty one (Essentially "Listen to me or I'll..."). Regardless, pictures will be found or caputred in person by another, and articles will still improve... - Nbound (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I want to work with you!. Ive even re-suggested your gazettal idea over at IAusR. I hope we can continue in a constructive manner [Hell we dont even have to agree all that often! but we should disagree respectfully :) ] -- Nbound (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We all know that there is behind the scene's discussion are going on. The only people with OWN issues is the roads project, whom ignore those who are not members of Roads or don't agree with them, just to get IR to be the ruling template. Really, you haven't seen the amount of photographs I've contributed to the project; which didn't exist or lacked coverage. Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a few minutes to reflect, you are pushing this conspiracy theory in a thread that is in no way related to IR, or US roads for that matter. And you are threatening to stop contributing if you dont get your way. If you want to discuss behavioural issues further, it should be done in the appropriate channels, not by derailing this thread. - Nbound (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Short memory? You never bothered to ask my input, even after the effort I put in to create File:Australian alpha numeric route shield (M23).svg. It's very well known how US Roads act to get what they want. Bidgee (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The infobox discussion was left in WP:AURD until:

It was clear this was something that WP:AURD members wanted (any other group or editor can also propose such a thing of course)
We had a good proposal rather than present the community with an idea that would be rejected for not meeting Australian requirements (as it had been previously).

It is WP:OWNership to expect to be asked to a random wikiproject discussion. It is also WP:OWNership to expect that WP:AURD will run every single one of its discussions through WP:AUS. Ironically, you are making a similar argument against WP:HWY or USRD, potentially having oversight on IR template edits. You are more than welcome to join WP:AURD or watch the page if you feel you can contribute more than the average editor as far as Australian roads content is concerned, as is any existing member of WP:AUS or wikipedia in general.

I also contacted several hundred editors in regards to IR (and specifically not USRD, also non-AU members of WP:AURD have chosen (without being asked) not to comment in the RfC, presumably due to potential COI issues) once the proposal had been readied for greater discussion (and with all decisions being open to challenge, as stated in the proposal). This group of people invited included you and probably most editors who have had significant contributions to IAusR and Australian Roads in general.

If you truely believe there has been inappropriate discussion between myself and USRD members in regards to either the shielding, or either template, or that I am a sockpuppet of a USRD member (all are easily proven/disproven using wikipedia records), then make a complaint via the appropriate channels, and we'll see how well this theory stacks up, otherwise stop making completely unfounded complaints. -- Nbound (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, you failed to even ask me, not even asking for my view. I think it's clear on what your view is and no wonder why no other editors (including listed members) have given up. COI is also so clear (Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Mitchell Freeway). I've put far more time and effort than you ever will. Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You dont actually own the decision whether Wikipedia decides to use it in articles or not. Besides there hasnt been any complaints other than your own, so it would seem that most people are happy with the new changes, if they werent the process would have stopped long ago, and a discussion had. Given that the ACR discussion mentioned is at WP:HWY, and most members there are from USRD, if anyone there believes there is actually any COI, Im sure they will call me out on it, and I would likely rescind my support. Funnily enough, I actually don't like to make potentially undeserved changes as far as quality rating changes go, insofar as I wouldnt promote one of my own articles to B-class a little while back (see bottom). Perhaps, Mitchell Freeway just a damn good article? (read it!)

This has gone on long enough and I wont be putting up with the wild accusations levelled at me throughout this thread, I will be seeking admin intervention -- Nbound (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole thing has nothing to do with USRD, so please stop bringing up that project. I offered my skills as someone who makes SVG shield graphics and I take pride in getting it right. If you actually read the NSW alphanumeric discussion above, you can see the constructive discussion where we (myself, Evad, and Nbound) sought actual drawings to create accurate images. To their credit, they found them and I went to work. I created a file showed it to them for their approval; when it wasn't quite right, I fixed it. When they found the official color specs, I corrected files I had already uploaded. My point is that the work I have done has been for the benefit of AURD under the direction of AURD. Any insinuation that AURD is doing things for the pleasure of USRD is baseless, offensive, and assumes bad faith. –Fredddie ™ 23:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nbound (talk) on this. Bidgee (talk) is a truly nasty piece of work. Throwing around legalisms sounds a lot like WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There wasnt actually any legal threats, TheSyndromeOfaDown. Regardless of the thoughts of all editors involved this discussion has been done with for a couple of days now. Lets all, WP:DROPTHESTICK and move away from the carcass of this off-topic discussion :). -- Nbound (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Bidgee has posted an apology on my talk page, and I have accepted it without any reservations. For anyone who wishes to view, it will be left on my talk page for 12-24 hours before being deleted. Lets all get back to the business of roads edits! :) -- Nbound (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So back to the original topic, which approach do other users here think would be best suited, in summary:

Redirects to show new image on all pictures, and gradual AUshielding. (all images updated in short term, merged into maintenance/usability tool (AUshield) in the long term) (example here (Gold Coast Highway shield fixed via redirect at a test location)
Aggresive AUshielding (images merged into AUshield as discovered by editors) - (Aggressive meaning at a faster rate than the above only)

Are there any benefits or pitfalls which arent being considered? -- Nbound (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your aggressive forcing (not just the shields but the IR also) of what you want is a disgrace to the project. You're not going have current shields redirected to suit you and as far as I'm concerned, I'll no longer be contributing any road related photographs. Bidgee (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment above was originally posted here, but previously moved above the horizontal rule, though the editor has objected to its placement there. Anyone planning to tidy it up, do not move it again (or get permission) -- Nbound (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This also affects all pre-existing shielding, not just the NSW shielding mentioned above. - Nbound (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Something to consider: Would the proposed file redirects be inline with policy on Commons? - Evad37 (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Im not aware of any policy for or against (just to make it clear - we would move existing images to other locations - not delete or somehow hide them behind a redirect). These file moves alone could be a big enough task for this to be not worth considering. -- Nbound (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

D-class roadways in SA

Before I nom the pics for deletion, can anyone give an official source that D96, D95, and D83; are all official route designations in SA.

By proof of SA goverment official documents, or by photographic proof of it being used to mark the route. If it is not being used to mark the route, we should not have an image of it, though it could be mentioned that it is an internal designation for the road in article prose.

Ive tried google but it aint much help...

Nbound (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Files removed from articles. If no evidence can be found within a week or so, I will likely nominate said images for deletion. - Nbound (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest discussions are centre here, please discuss here also: Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#D-class_roadways_in_SA

Nbound (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Images proposed for deletion at: Commons:Deletion requests/SA D-class routes -- Nbound (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for some input and/or alternative ideas (Hobart Infrastructure Template)

Hello all. I encourage everyone (especially those with knowledge of Hobart) to give some input into a new Hobart Road infobox I have created. I've explained the reasoning in greater detail on the page in question. Much appreciated, Wiki ian 20:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox road proposal

There is a proposal to use Wikidata for displaying a map in Infobox road, only if both the map_custom= and map= field are blank. Your input is welcomed at Template talk:Infobox road. --Rs chen 7754 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Too many variations of alpha numeric shield (for NSW)

Pardon me if this has been mentioned above, because I do not want to read the big chunk above especially the AUshield section. I have seen quite a few variations of alpha numeric shields in different articles. Take for example the M1 shield:

May 2013: File:NSW alphanumeric route M1.svg by Freddie
March 2013: by Bidgee
2006:
2006:

I think we should standardise which type of shield we should put in the NSW articles. I personally prefer the design by Freddie, becasue all other route numbers have this design available, meaning it is readily available when updating articles to alpha numeric shields. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The May 2013 set is the only complete set and the current defacto standard*, and is also designed as close to the real thing as possible (based off diagrams and real life photos). The other files are redundant and may be deleted at some future point when they arent used at all, though none of us here are that I am aware of are actively seeking that (most redundant images seem to stay on commons unless their usage becomes a problem). Bidgee's images could have a use on any future article concerning the conversion aswell (they are based on the promo set).

The preferred method for shielding uses {{AUshield}} (eg. ) - this allows easier maintenance of shielding when future changes occur. A minority of articles have been AUshielded at this stage.

The

sets are for the other states that use alphanumeric shielding (TAS, SA, VIC, and QLD), as they use a common standard that is different to NSW. It should also be noted there are some alphanumeric national shields too

for those states. The non-NSW alphanumerics will be redone soon. Any AUshielded instance will not need to be updated by hand :)

-- Nbound (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussions in relation to the May 2013 shields (and quite a few of the others) can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads/Archive_2#NSW.2FACT_Alphanumeric_Shields

Similar cases of multiple types of images also occur with the other shield types. The {{AUshield}} types are the preferred (and many are even based off official specs such as those found in AS1743 and similar publications)

For cases when hardcoding an image is required for whatever reason - links to the commons categories containing the latest shield sets are located at WP:AURD/R (Resources)

-- Nbound (talk)

Thanks. I have understood. I will know what shield to add in to the articles as the alpha numeric project is progressing. Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A8 NSW and AUshield

Hi Guys, I would like to make a few points about A8 and {{AUshield}}.

The road names for the major junctions in the infobox of A8 is unaligned. Will it be better if the {{AUshield}} is put behind the road names?
Is it necessary to include the name of the route after the {{AUshield}}. For example: " (A8)"?
Should we make it default for ALL {{AUshield}} to have links and have a bigger default size like 30px or 40px? For example , which is 45px looks better than which has a default size of 20px. The link which tells you info stating the author and details about the shields, is also added to the 45px shield.

So should we make this changes? Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally icons go before their descriptions, but it might be worth making a 'blank' shield that just spaces out the wording to keep it aligned. Of course on most highways, non shielded routes arent major junctions. MOS:RJLs are the mechanism used to provide full junction lists (see Majura Parkway, Kwinana Freeway), and its usually acceptable to drop minor intersections even on those if the list is already large. The A8 article could quite possibly go without the other major junctions (Im not familiar with the road, I just performed a quick conversion).
Yes it is necessary for those using wikipedia who cant display images (or use a screen reader) (See WP:ACCESS). It also helps the other shield types to have meaning overseas. doesnt mean National Route 1 to someone outside of Australia. could mean that for all they know, even though its just a relatively unimportant Tourist Drive in the ACT.
Using larger shields in the infobox and RJLs make them unnecessarily large. Only a few uses require the larger size. The default size can be changed, but was chosen not to unnecessarily expand the infoboxes/RJLs. We couldnt get around this in every circumstance so a trade-off was made for ALT (and similar) shielding.

Compare:

Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road

and

Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road

Now imagine that on a complex long route. :)

-- Nbound (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marcnut1996. First off, I'll just point out that {{AUshield}} is also used in road junction lists, which should be inline with the Manual of Style for road junction lists (most of the roads which currently have such a list do not conform, but check out, for example, Mitchell Freeway#Interchanges). Regarding the position of the route marker icons, one of the points in the MOS is

Route marker graphics should always appear at the beginning of the line, per the principle behind Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Do_not_use_icons_in_general_article_prose: "Icons should not be used in the article body...This breaks up the continuity of the text, distracting the reader."

And I think the same logic applies to infoboxes. Also, even if the road names were to be aligned, the icons would then not be aligned, which would probably also look odd.

Including the name of the route as well as the image is necessary for two reasons - accessibility, and for people not familiar with Australian route shields. With regards to accessibility, MOS:ACCESS#Images requires that...

Images should contain a caption, either using the built in image syntax or a secondary line of text. The caption should concisely describe the meaning of the image, the essential information it is trying to convey.

A road name by itself is not an adequate description of the meaning of the image, which is the route number. The alt text and image link can be removed, since the caption provides the alternative for readers with a screen reader or images turned off, and the link isn't needed since the images are PD, or released under a similar waiver such as CC0.

The default size of 20 pixels in height ensures that the images only take up a single line of text, and is inline with MOS:RJL, which specifies "If route marker graphics are used, generally, they should have a height of 20–25px." Also, in infoboxes, larger images would means taking up more space (as Nbound demonstrates above), when width is limited, and having really long infoboxes are undesirable. - Evad37 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added blank spacing images to A8 infobox so that the text lines up. Something similar could be coded into {{AUshield}} - Evad37 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Its slightly the wrong colour, needs to be a light grey. I propose {{AUshield|NO|Shield}}. Or its own unrelated template like {{NOshield}}. Im pretty sure both IR and IAusR use the same background colour, both being based on {{infobox}} at some level. -- Nbound (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake... used File:Blank.gif instead of File:Transparent.gif. And I was thinking something like {{AUshield|none}} or {{AUshield|+|space}} or similar... but the size needs to be adjustable based on the width of what's used above/below - Evad37 (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

{{AUshield|none}} sounds good to me. I would also propose that we use the shield above to go off for shield width. We will need to make a table of widths, or hardcode individual sizes depening on a second parameter (ie. {{AUshield|none|<prev shield>}}), with <prev shield> switching the size used (rather than linking to an actual image of different size). -- Nbound (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want blank SVGs, File:No image.svg and File:No image wide.svg exist. –Fredddie ™ 12:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have implemented basic spacer functionality in AUshield. Usage: {{AUshield|none|size=*px}}. "None", "none", and "0" are all acceptable type parameters. At this stage you need to set space width manually. default is 20px. -- Nbound (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Foobar Road
Foobar Road
Foobar Road

Now automated, using presized blanks (ewwwy but easiest) - Usage: {{AUshield|none|<shield>}}, with <shield> being the shield you want to approximate.
<shield> inputs accepted:

N
N Alpha
R
S
Met
NSW Small
NSW Mid
NSW Large

Will wait for the new sets for any others.
Former shielding is never used in lists and is therefore not needed.
Nbound (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Testing Purposes Only, code may change and things may break! - Nbound (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Evad! I didnt see your talk messages until I was done anyway :). As always, all other editors feel free to modify as you desire. -- Nbound (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

M1 A1 shield looks weird

The M1 and A1 shields used for {{AUshield}} looks so weird, the dimmensions are wrong, especially when compared with other alpha numeric shields (See below or Pacific Highway infobox as a example). What can be done? These are default sizes.

The bottom 2 are of the same px (30px), yet they look different.

Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought this previously too, but they are different sizes in real life... see following image - [23] A41 is noticably different in size to A20 despite having the same number of characters. -- Nbound (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving Metroad 7

I have proposed move changes at Talk:Metroad 7, for Metroad 7 to be renamed to A28 Cumberland Highway. Please show your support (or oppose) at that talk page. Any comments should be written in that talk page too. Thanks. Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We should just make it "Cumberland Highway" IMHO, no need for the prefix. It should also be noted that part of the A28 is the Hume Highway aswell (between A22 and M31). -- Nbound (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense... but I think we should let anyone searching for A28, Sydney to redirect to the new page. According to your opinion, naming it with prefix A28 or adding redirect of A28 isn't a good idea.... So how? Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that redirects are cheap and easy. –Fredddie ™ 12:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And disambiguation pages can be used if there are multiple roads with the route allocation - Evad37 (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the redirect would be justified, just not the prefix on the article itself (and even if there werent any problems at all, would we want to create a precedent for other even more complex routes). The existing Metroad 7 article could be split between the Westlink and Cumberland articles, as well as bits from Metroad 6, and James Ruse Drive (SR40) if required. Its also unclear whether there will be a full A40/A28 duplex where James Ruse Drive and another street form part of the Cumberland Hwy, or if one will be the only allocation in that area. The old Metroad pages could become disambig pages between the various new routes that have been made from them. -- Nbound (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I know redirects are easy. But anyone searching for A28, Sydney is looking for the Hume Highway section is unlikely. So there is no wrong in adding the prefix A28 as hardly anyone will search for the Hume Highway section. They would have searched for Hume Highway instead. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, at no point did I state I was against A28, Sydney as a redirect to Cumberland Highway. Just no A28 on the Cumberland Highway article itself :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So if you do not mind redirect what is wrong with adding a prefix? Anyway to everyone, who agrees with either of these options:

Name: A28 Cumberland Highway, redirected from Cumberland Highway, included in Metroad 7 disambiguation page.
Name: Cumberland Highway, redirected from A28, Sydney, included in Metroad 7 disambiguation page. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The second one is the one Im suggesting so I support it :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasoning for no prefix is: WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NATURALDIS/WP:PRECISION. The only roads IMHO that should have it are those referred to it as part of their name (Hills M2, Westlink M7, M5 East). People will call this the Cumberland Highway, or the A28, but not both. And given that the A28 also includes a bit of the Hume, no point doubling up on the articles. We could have an article on the A28 itself, but there is an existing less ambiguous name. If Metroad 10 had a shared name along its route, I would have made the WP:BOLD move to that name rather than A8, Sydney :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone else please make your choices. Depending on the number of supports or opposes with good reasoning, I may change the name of the proposed new page. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd vote for Cumberland Highway. I would have also made the link A28 (Sydney) and A8 (Sydney), but I'm not going to argue. –Fredddie ™ 22:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I also think Cumberland Highway, per Nbound's reasoning. Also, given that it is a statewide numbering system, you could also have a A28, New South Wales redirect/dab page. - Evad37 (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Partially offtopic to the original discussion, but some here might be interested, there will be a full A40/A28 duplex on part of the Cumberland Hwy... theyve taken down the coverplates recently:

https://aussie-highways.googlegroups.com/attach/b510312fa638bf0f/IMG_2484.JPG?view=1&part=4

Oddly sized shields too... Enjoy! -- Nbound (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)