Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:38, 19 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Australian Roads and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability Shortcut WT:AURD

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Australian Roads and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Australian Roads Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Australian Roads, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads and highways in Australian states and territories. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Australian RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Australian RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Australian RoadsAustralia road transport Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Highways Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

	Australia Project‑class
WikiProject Australian Roads is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Project Noticeboard

Article to-dos

• Convert all shields in articles to use {{AUshield}}.
• Convert all existing NSW highway shields to their alphanumeric shields by the end of 2013.
• Convert existing junction lists to be MOS:RJL compliant.

Recently created articles

Please add new articles at the bottom of the list.

• Yarra Glen, Canberra - 30 April 2013
• <Your new article goes here!>

Article alerts

A-Class reviews

• Mitchell Freeway has been nominated for promotion; see discussion
• Kwinana Freeway has been nominated for promotion; see discussion

Article alerts

Redirects for discussion

• 09 Jan 2025 – T:IARD (talk · edit · hist) →Template:Infobox Australian road was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion

Project watchlists: Articles • Talk pages

WikiProject Australian Roads
Project home (WP:AURD) Talk page (WT:AURD) Portal (P:AURD) Assessment (WP:AURD/A) Resources (WP:AURD/R) Article Standards (WP:AURD/AS) Discussions Library (WP:AURD/L) Advanced Permissions (WP:AURD/P) The U Turn (newsletter) (WP:AURD/NEWS) Parent projects Wikiproject Highways (WP:HWY)  • A-Class Review (WP:HWY/ACR)  • Chat (WP:HWY/IRC)  • Route markers (WP:HWY/RM) Wikiproject Australia (WP:AUS)  • Notice board (WP:AWNB)

Majura Parkway

Redone/cleaned up an existing article a fair bit today (compare previous: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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 ). 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)

CWill 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? . 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Infobox

I realise this is a contentious issue; but it will need to be addressed at some point, what are our thoughts on converting to {infobox road}? Even if the functionality can be duplicated? - Im personally not qualified to cast judgement on it yet as I wasnt around during the previous discussions to see the major problems, so at this stage I wont. {infobox australian road} seems to perform relatively well, but im not necessarily against migration, depending on what the problems are. - Nbound (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against {{Infobox road}} as a concept - it does in general provide more functionality and flexibility than {{Infobox Australian road}} - however I believe it requires further work to customise it for Australian roads. I am willing to discuss the issue further when I'm back from wikibreak (which I am going on, despite these last two posts) - Evad37 (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The rest of us can continue the discussion while you are gone, and see if a consensus can be reached here and with other affected editors on WP:HWY and WP:AUS :) - Nbound (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that I'd like to see the migration happen. Now, lest my comments be a lightning rod here for some criticism, Some time ago I was working with WOSlinker to see if he could make whatever changes were needed to make a smooth transition possible. Someone else saw some of that discussion and nominated the template for deletion prematurely. So to do this in an orderly fashion, let's discuss, discuss, discuss up front, then sandbox stuff and test it. I think we'd all like a rational discussion, so let's learn from, and move on from, the past animosity.

The older infobox for tracks that was merged into IAusR had parameters for indicating permits/etc. A variation on that concept was implemented in IR with |restrictions=. I've already used that in a trio of FAs: Brockway Mountain Drive is closed to vehicles in the winter as is a section of H-58 (Michigan county highway). A segment of Interstate 696 has a restriction on trucks with hazardous materials. So a roadway that would require a special permit could be noted as |restrictions=Permit required or similar. Limited fuel services could also be notated in a similar fashion, |restrictions=Limited fuel services, and any combinations of those restrictions could be indicated together . In any case, I'd suggest that the text be succinct as a good infobox is a summary of, and not a replacement for the full text of the article. Anyways, this is a case where an Aussie situation was imported to American articles and improved them. I'm sure there could be others.

I'm all ears on other updates and improvements. Some of the subtemplates for IR have been rewritten in Lua by Happy5214 (talk · contribs), so I'll ping him to see what he can offer in terms of support for coding solutions. Imzadi 1979 → 01:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I could support some thing like "Limited fuel (and/or facilities), please see {this section} in article". And list them there... There isnt really any cut-off as to when fuel becomes limited of course (ie. its arbitrary), but its probably safe to be left upto common sense. There are multiple roads that are closed for snow in the Australian Alps aswell, so it could be of use there too... - Nbound (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think your "migration plan" of sorts outlined above is reasonable Izmadi, if you wouldnt mind could you go through the previous discussions and list the points of contention. Or just link them here, and I will do it. :) - Nbound (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear/see how a circular road like State Circle, could be implemented using {{Infobox road}} aswell - Nbound (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We have generally used a "zero milepost" where the numbering starts. For example, see Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway). --Rschen7754 06:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, looking for a better example. --Rschen7754 06:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Its worth noting that I have picked an arbitrary point as the start of the junction listing on that page. - Nbound (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) M-185 (Michigan highway), a FA on a "highway" that loops around Mackinac Island. Imzadi 1979 → 06:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems workable; Ill also note for others I like the use for split sections as per here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Highway_1_%28Australia%29 with the separate mainland and tasmanian listings. - Nbound (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting for your State Circle example that IR has the |tourist= option for denoting tourist routes. We use that in the US for things like the Lake Superior Circle Tour or the Great River Road. U.S. Route 41 in Michigan has an example of how it's used for different types of tourist routes. Imzadi 1979 → 06:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been sandboxing and found a few problems/queries so far: (User:Nbound/sandbox):

• No way to add a date of completion for roads that are under construction (Using the "established" option outputs something like "2016-present").
• Heading is too small; Australian roads with very few exceptions are identified by their name, for some roads the average person couldnt even tell you the highway number. (The ACT has even taken it to its logical extreme in its internal road network and does not even number roads at all (excluding a few highways from New South Wales).) In my sandbox, the unnumbered route for State Circle's main junctions is much higher quality than the other two
• It would be good if you could provide link templates for individual states (the bit at the bottom), either blanked, or just copies of the current one, to be modified.
• A documentation rewrite will be required for Australian users as the un-numbered road template is of more use for most roads here than the numbered one, and other australian specific problems will likely arise through mine and others suggestions.
• "Major Junctions" should be replaced with "Major Intersections/Interchanges" or similar wording. Here only railway lines have junctions.
• Needs provision to diplay on the infobox something like... "Roadway type: Grade separated parkway", "Roadway type: Grade separated dual-carriageway", "Roadway type: Partially grade separated dual-carriageway", "Roadway type: Single-carriageway, with limited sections of dual-carriageway" - this would be very useful in the ACT.
• How do i code a split loop road? (confused?... see here: Capital Circle, Canberra - Google Maps). To help you get a idea, the larger part is a 3-lane wide oneway roadway between commonwealth avenue (southbound) and adelaide avenue (westbound), the smaller part is the same but travels from adelaide avenue (eastbound) to commonwealth avenue (northbound). I have tried, but it looks pretty sloppy.
• If a road is a loop, but it doesnt loop around anything in particular. How do you code that? (All ACT Tourist Drives are loops)
• I cant change the table heading colours (which are tied to type) without it trying to link to a shield (non-existent in ACT).
• It would be handy to have somewhere to put the former shield (ACT/NSW is converting to alphanumeric shields this year) - could use photo caption as per australian road box though, but the new infobox doesnt display it if there is no picture!.

Im only testing ACT related roads at this stage. Others will likely have more; and may disgaree with some of my thoughts/ideas too - Nbound (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Some comments in reply

• Use |history=, see Interstate 696 for an example. It takes a freeform input to allow more detailed histories instead of X-Y dates (with "present" for current highways).
• The heading stuff was customized for Australia, but I'm sure we can do more tweaking with it to a point. That point would be some consistency issues with other articles in other countries.
• There is a separate subtemplate that handles that, for Australia it would be {{infobox road/browselinks/AUS}}. All of the US states are handles through a single national subtemplate, so the output is quite customizable.
• Documentation can be adjusted.
• For the US, we used to use "Major intersections", but we standardized on "Major junctions" for some commonality with the UK. Just as the UK uses "Road network" and the US uses "Highway system" for the bottom, we could insert a switch to swap the text around for labels/headings.
• No other country displays a roadway type, and I'm a bit hesitant to insert that. Further discussion and opinions should happen first.
• That case is something truly unique that I've never seen an analog in the US. Since there isn't an analog elsewhere, TMK, we'll have to develop a solution.
• Short of taking the easy answer out with "Loop around Canberra" or "Loop around the ACT"... not sure... I had to have the "Loop" option added (we only had Beltway or Orbital) so that M-185 (Michigan highway) would make sense since that isn't really a beltway around the island. If you have a specific idea, we can implement something specific too.
• |marker_image=none will shut off the marker image, but I think appropriate shield subtemplate can do the same automatically for |country=AUS |state=ACT. I know we have some roadway types in the US set to not display a marker.

Imzadi 1979 → 04:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I only just edited in the former shield bit, you probably missed it preparing your own post, any ideas on that one? - Nbound (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The tourist option also doesnt work for AUS (or I am using it wrong) - Nbound (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm making a request to have an admin fix a subtemplate. As for the former shield/number... I'd suggest in the |alternate_name= field, or maybe leaving it out altogether? In the few cases where I've had a highway that's been renumbered, it's been inserted in the browsers at the bottom. So M-119 (Michigan highway), which was previously M-131 has M-131's browser line, and then in the history section, I added a {{infobox road small}} for M-131. Imzadi 1979 → 05:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

alternate name displays above the current shield (where it should), but thats not where you want a former shield to be. Its unlikely that AURD would use the browser section as its of little to no use in Australia. And a new box seems a little too much for something that is likely to only have a sentence of information in the text. The history section could possibly be used, but it then is less usable if any actual history is meant to go there for the same particular road. -- Nbound (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd just leave it out of the infobox if its only going to get a sentence in the body of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Remote outback highways where part or all of the route is unsealed (and may be little more than a dirt track), could also benefit from a "roadway type" section I suggested above. (See Gunbarrel Highway, Anne Beadell Highway, and Buntine Highway, the latter being a partially unsealed numbered route. It could also be of use to the ice road routes over lakes in the northern winter. I do agree we should see what others think though - Nbound (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it not possible to allow the photo caption section to display without a photo like the australian road one? Many AURD articles also use this section to show future shield changes too. Specific coding for it would have been the preferred option though - Nbound (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Im still unsure how to switch off the marker image aswell (see my sandbox from the link further up - ive left it the way it stays if i set the road to being M-class ) - Nbound (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

To override the marker image (or "shield"), the parameter is named |marker_image=. To shut off that image, use |marker_image=none. Shield isn't really an appropriate term as not all markers are shield-shaped, hence the more neutral, "marker". Imzadi 1979 → 06:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You cant turn it off for all ACT cases as your edit back up a bit further suggests as a possible option, as there are roads in the ACT which are part of numbered routes (eg. Canberra Avenue, Northbourne Avenue, State Circle. :) - Nbound (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I might be worth pointing out that for the US, we do make a distinction between state highways and city streets. For the latter, we have {{infobox street}}. IR is aimed more at state or national highways and other major roadways. Maybe some of the cases you're looking at would fall under the purview of that template more so that the one we've been discussing?

The distinction doesnt apply here: Highways are merely a collection of other shorter routes here. For example you wont find an article on Highway 23, but you will find Federal Highway, Northbourne Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, State Circle, Canberra Avenue, and Monaro Highway articles. Canberra Avenue for example is longer than the GDE, and has two separate shields due to different allocations along its length as opposed to the GDE not having any. infobox street, last i checked was for streets of note for one reason or another (tourist, historical, design, etc.), not parts of highways. And it would just move a whole heap of other problems there too. We are meant to be trying to combine into one infobox for consistency, if the option is to use two separate completely different infoboxes, then why should I move from the single box solution Im already using? Its not perfect, but it can also still be changed to precisely meet our needs. - Nbound (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone documented the various code sections/templates (and where to find them) for infobox road aswell? Then either now, or in the future, the australian roads group can modify its own areas. - Nbound (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Any interstate users feel free to chime in aswell... if its any consolation Imzadi1979, the other states may be a little easier to bring under the infobox road wing- Nbound (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There is full documentation on the various subtemplates. Template:Infobox road/doc/tech lists the technical inner workings, and Template:Infobox road/doc/country links to the subtemplates for each specific country. Imzadi 1979 → 09:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw my 3c worth in on this, it may be prudent to check previous discussions regarding the infobox to get a better idea of why conversion was opposed:

• Template talk:Infobox Australian road#Infobox conversion proposal - Proposal to convert dated 22 August 2010 by Imzadi1979. When he/she had no opposition (probably because nobody was watching the template) conversion commenced, until the changes to roads were noticed. Opposition included concerns about route logos and images, and their placement, particularly because route markers don't have the significance in Australia that they seem to have in the US. Here the name is generally more important. The discussion subsequently resulted in a TfD, also nominated by Imzadi1979.
• TfD 13 September 2010 - concerns about implementation and issues. Most notably, one editor wrote, "Oppose at least until some good faith attempts are made to address the concerns of local editors about the move." opposition by Australian editors ultimately resulted in the nomination being withdrawn.
• TfD 31 December 2011 - Despite numerous previous requests to consult with WP:AUSTRALIA, this was the first contact made since the last TfD, and there was much objection to the conversion, including concerns that issues raised in the last TfD has not been addressed. Such concerns included terminology. Some of the concerns were ultimately addressed, but the TfD still closed as "No consensus".

I highly recommend reading these discussions, even though they total some 18,000+ words. We need to be sure that the issues raised have been addressed before considering conversion. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for linking those AussieLegend - Nbound (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am also a little worried that if we converted (and we are a fair way off that for the roads i deal with, at this stage), if changes were wanted, like we wanted to have specific Australian looks or functionality, it would have to be ok'd by some unrelated third party. -- Nbound (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is one of the advantages of IAR, we can make changes as needed. Something as simple as "terminus" presented quite a problem at the last TfD because somebody else had to make the changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't see this as a major issue, particuarly as most issues should be worked out here before any changeover is proposed. Also: (1) There are already things outside of the project's direct control that apply to our articles, such as MOS:RJL and wikipedia wide policies; (2) changes, beyond those made here, may not be as controversial as you think, especially if they can be coded to only affect the behaviour for Australian roads - all that they would require is a willing template editor and a willing admin; (3) the other editors won't be totally unrelated, as they would be members of one of our parent projects, Wikiproject Highways (or a national level roads subproject). The recent experiences I've had with the US road editors have been positive and helpful. It would be great if everyone could assume good faith, despite the mistakes of the past. - Evad37 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

and the various templates linked from Template:Infobox road/doc/country allow some changes in appearence and function for Australia without affecting any other countries - Evad37 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

AGF is great but but I admit to being a fan of both Winston Churchill and George Santayana. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasnt assuming bad faith, im sure Imzadi means well, in previous discussions it had been stated that AU wanted this, then they wanted that, and now something else ... or for want of a better description, we were being too demanding. Already in this discussion its been suggested that i use a different infobox, that roadway type information (which would be very informative in the ACT) requires further discussion, because nowhere else in the world has a need for it (I dont deny it warrants further discussion, but not for the reasoning provided). And we should basically not include information that already exists in many Australian highway article infoboxes (former/future shielding). - Nbound (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping that we stimulate debate and fruitful discussion. My mention of infobox street was meant to provide information, namely that there is a second infobox that's commonly used for individual city streets, even in cases where a state highway is routed along a city street. As for the others, I'm not against adding and developing additional parameters, just that we should discuss things first.

One point of consideration is whether or not a specific data point needs or warrants inclusion in the infobox. Lots of information is useful, but USRD has had reviewers at FAC criticize articles with long infoboxes. In response to that criticism, the project formulated a guideline that no more than 10 intermediate junctions be listed in an infobox. We've also had neutrality issues with listing "Major cities", so instead we've defaulted to only listing counties for the location. Maybe we've gotten into too much of a minimalist perspective on infoboxes, but the USRD project has had a different set of experiences to draw on previously. Multiple perspectives coming together can reach a better outcome, or so I hope. Imzadi 1979 → 03:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

@Nbound - We weren't being too demanding, we were simply expecting that Infobox road be compatible with Australian requirements, because there was no point converting if it wasn't. Proponents of Infobox road had never bothered to find this out. Nor did some see there was any need to find out before nominating IAR for deletion, instead seeing TfD as the consultation process. There shouldn't be any need to use {{Infobox street}}, IAR is designed to cater for several road types, freeways, highways, city highways, roads, rural roads, streets and tracks. when last we addressed the issue of infobox road which, sadly, was here, it did NOT cater for all Australian requirements, which is why it was opposed. If the ACT has special requirements, then it shouldn't be too difficult to incorporate them into IAR. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but something to keep in mind is that you have to meet the requirements of the encyclopedia in general. Infobox street was created because streets have different needs than roads, and the articles are usually maintained by different groups of editors. Finally, while we are slowly converting IBR to Lua, we do not plan on converting IAR. --Rschen7754 05:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How does IAR not meet the requirements of the encyclopaedia "in general"? The argument about maintenance by different editors is specious. Most editors don't stick to one type of article, they're confronted by multiple, different infoboxes and other templates that are ALL different. Infobox Australian road shows that the requirements for streets aren't that different from roads, as it caters for both, as well as the previously mentioned freeways, highways, city highways, rural roads, and tracks. The Lua issue is not really relevant to this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that the community expects all featured articles to have certain characteristics, and one of those is that infoboxes should be well laid out. Lua (and Wikidata which I forgot) are what this site's templates are heading towards, and we do not plan to support IAR in that transition. --Rschen7754 05:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

STOP it, both of you! Can we please discuss specific items for implementation or refinement in subsections below? That way those who would like to see some sort of conversion in the future can target specific details to implement or refine. Again, I might come from a minimalist perspective aimed at keeping overall infobox display size down, but I'm persuadable as to making targeted additions. A request from New Zealand (tourist routes) and an idea inspired by something from Australia have found their way into several of the Featured Articles I've put together. I don't care if we spend several weeks discussing specific details, but let's discuss making {{infobox road}} better for all sorts of situations, ok? Imzadi 1979 → 05:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont mind spending alot of time doing this either, and i wouldnt mind the change as long as its done properly (and I think my fellow editors would agree with that sentiment). To chuck a spanner in the works though, should we even be aiming for a minimalistic infobox? That may be the preferred way in the US, but it may not fit our needs so well here (Im not specifically stating whether it does or doesnt at this point - I dont speak for everyone). There is no specific policy stating that infoboxes have to be short, and a look at the infoboxes in various astronomical articles will show a large infobox can provide a lot of useful information, that is still well laid out (eg. Ceres (dwarf planet), Jupiter) - Im not stating we have ours that long, but you get the idea. - Nbound (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Imzadi, calm down. Previous discussions raised a number of issues and we need to ensure that the concerns that were raised have been addressed. Remember, if someone hadn't jumped the gun and nominated the template for deletion in the first place.... Rschen7754, what do you mean by "we". Will existing tables fail to operate? There are a lot of infoboxes built like IAR, which will all need fixing. If you mean "we" the roads project, I'm quite sure Australian editors can upgrade the infobox, as they've been doing for the past 7 years. Nbound, absolutely correct, some infoboxes have a huge number of parameters. {{Infobox settlement}} (322,521 transclusions), and {{Infobox school}} (21,112 transclusions) are both large infoboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion below discussing what features need implementation or refinement. Adding and tweaking existing functions is easy, but let's try to hammer out the specifics to have some kind of a plan of action to move forward. If we need to add 3 parameters, we add 3; if we need to add 5, we add 5. I just don't want to add 3 and find out there's 3 more afterwards and then another 3... Does that make sense?

My goal should be simple to comprehend. There used to be 57 different templates internationally and 58 additional infoboxes just for the US. This was a potential maintenance nightmare, and most of them had totally different physical appearances. It's not quite so bad now with only the two (IR, IAusR), but if we could find a way to get down to one template between IR and IAusR, then implementing Wikidata will be easier because once IR has the necessary coding, the implementation will be ready for all articles on highways and major roads. The second part of the equation is that some specific implementation options for Australia might be wonderful to use in other cases in other places, like we added the tourist routes out of the New Zealand articles and implemented a parameter on restrictions that's been useful in some articles I've worked on. Imzadi 1979 → 12:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But thats just the thing, we dont know every specific issue thats going rear its ugly head, until we have converted each and every article. If I can find several issues in just a handful of test cases in the smallest Australian territory by area, there could be many more across the road network. We cant ever guarantee that once you've done a certain 3, 7, 12, or 50 things its all over. There isnt any maintenance issue with IAusR, because it isnt upto US roads to maintain it (noone would say no to US editors help, we dont hate americans, but the US roads project isnt obliged to maintain an australian infobox). - Nbound (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But that doesn't make sense to me. If IR does everything IAusR does, or everything desired of IAusR, then we shouldn't run into anything further. So I guess if we get everything IAusR currently does into IR, then we should be set. Just as a note of comparison, but I've found that the smaller the territory, the stranger and more numerous the oddball exceptions will be. For example, the Capitol Loop in Lansing, Michigan, runs along a series of one-way streets that form an arc to the north of I-496. really, there's only one section along one street that has two-way traffic. The two directions of traffic have significantly different lengths, 2.0 vs. 2.3 miles. (0.3 miles isn't much unless it's about 1/7 or 1/8 of the whole length). MOS:RJL didn't need to be rewritten to accommodate this oddball, rather a common-sense application was developed where we have two junction list tables, one for each direction. The analogy for here is that there will always be some weird and unique situation, but if we can get the core situation handled that applies to the majority of more standard roadways, we'll figure out the oddities that would challenge any infobox application. Imzadi 1979 → 13:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Route allocation

An issue I'd like to raise is the need for allocation or similar field to explain the road routes allocated to a road, and the markers used in the infobox. For some roads, these run along the whole length of the road, but other have routes only along a part of the road, or have multiple routes applied to different, and sometimes overlapping, sections - Evad37 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

There is already |allocation= in the template. I'm looking at updating it and importing it to the US for cases like the Ohio Turnpike or other toll roads that have different highway designations along various segments. See User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox4 for the "Component highways" label in the "Route information" section. The "allocation" label, while short, doesn't seem to evoke the same meaning for me, but remember that we can insert country-specific switches to alter display language. For the UK, we have "Road network" as the last heading above the "browselinks", but for most countries it is "Highway system". Imzadi 1979 → 21:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot another idea related to this. There are articles on roads in European countries where that highway forms a part of an E-road. Ditto Asian higways and the Asian Highway Network and a similar system in Africa. We had added |ahn= and similar parameters that output a "Part of X" display, where X is the graphic and name of the appropriate E-road(s), AHN road(s) or TAHN roads(s). Might something like this work for Australia? I'm not sure it would, but I did want to put that out there while I thought of it. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

My 2c, allocation sounds better to me. As for the latter, beyond Highway 1 (now that the National Highway is discontinued) there wouldnt be too much use for a "part of X" thing here, i would be cautious and see what other editors think about even the highway 1 example. It is insanely rare to see a highway route mentioned as a whole here (eg. Noone says "Highway 23", just the roads that make it up) - Nbound (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Allocation can be wikilinked to Route number#Australia, like I did for IAusR per an A-Class review request. "Road routes" may be better terminology, though will look odd when there is only one route - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just kinda tossing the spaghetti on the wall to see what ideas stick here, and seeing if there isn't a more globalized term we could use in the heading. Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't, which is why we can use a switch to alter the displayed label's text. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Roadway type

• We've already had a previously fulfilled request for the allocation (see section immediately above). Thoughts and discussion on the merits of including a |roadway_type=? I !vote that it would logically fit in the "Route information" section of the infobox if included. Is this an ACT-only request or for all of Australia? Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have a thought... we already have a |maint= parameter that outputs "Maintained by <maint>". I wonder if we could piggy-back these as "<roadway_type> maintained by <maint>" if both are supplied? Interstate 96 might then show up as "Freeway maintained by MDOT", and an example out of the ACT could be "Single-carriageway highway maintained by <maint>" or however would be best worded. {{Infobox road junction}} does something similar with construction years and contractor name to get "Constructed: 2002–2005 by Zachry Construction Corporation" out of |const= 2002–2005 |contractor=Zachry Construction Corporation. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It would be better they were left as separate parameters which just take standard text, as some roads may require more detailed descriptions (eg. Parkes Way is essentially a 6-lane grade separated expressway at one end, but is just a 4 lane dual carriageway arterial road with at-grade intersections at the other, Tharwa Drive is largely dual-carriageway, but goes through various other forms including a single lane (one direction at a time) bridge at its southern tip, Im sure there would be others aswell) - Nbound (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • And that's an example where such a parameter fails my personal infobox test. With the exception of simple lists of junctions, personally, the displayed information in an infobox should be succinct snippets of information. If we're up to the level of full sentences to explain the roadway type, that information should be in prose in the body of the article and left out of the infobox. Again, I'm not saying it's not valuable information for the article, but infoboxes are graphically organized sets of succinct bullet points about the subject of the article to me. Imzadi 1979 → 02:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Tourist routes

• This was implemented for New Zealand and imported to the US. With an update to a subtemplate, it's been "switched on" for Australia. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Tourist routes should show up below Allocation when both are used - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's something that I noticed when I discovered that the template already supported it. The sandbox reverses the order now. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• what about unnumbered heritage routes, like the goldfields pipeline which criss cross and follows most of Great Eastern Hwy 600km. Gnangarra 05:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The |tourist= parameter will accept any input, plain text or wikimarkup. Creating the correct tourist drive marker to go with such routes is another issue, but the routes can be listed as text without markers, or text with a blank marker (). For a complicated route that follows various parts of roads, this should be explained in the text of the article, rather than the infobox. - Evad37 (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Depending on what, if any, copyright applies to the design, it may even be possible to add it to the collection of tourist drive shields. I agree that if its an overly complex route that duplexes in multiple locations it should be explained in more depth in the article. The shield allocation can be described as "<shield><Route name> {new line} (Multiple locations)". - Nbound (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Heading formatting

• The name appears at the top of the infobox for Australia instead of under highway markers. This appears in the default size for infoboxes, and for consistency reasons, I wouldn't support making it larger. Font sizes will vary a bit based on end-user browser settings as well. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• It's already been noted that there is a switch in place to change at least one heading for the UK over ENGVAR considerations. Other switches can be put in place if there is consensus for specific wordings, however in the one case, "Major Intersections/Interchanges" is a bit unwieldy in length. How about just "Major intersections"? I would note that if this wording is implemented, I'd probably request that the US switch back to "Major intersections" and "Major junctions" actually become a UK-only setting to the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Major intersections is workable for me. The heading thing is important to me though, the current one is too small. Shields apply to multiple roads on a route here, not to individual highways (excl. some urban freeways), it doesnt deserve undue attention when the title is the most important part, that shield may refer to a dozen various other roads on the route, even unrelated ones in other states (eg. M2 refers to motorways in several Australian capitals - List of M2 roads) -- Nbound (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Major junctions is what IAusR uses at the moment, though I think "Major intersections" would be better. As for the heading, maybe some outside the box thinking is required - how would it look if the name was in the regular font size and the route markers were only in the allocation field (at around 20px hieght)? - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That was something I was actually thinking about earlier. Imagine if the Ohio Turnpike didn't have its own marker, and then picture the mockup at User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox4 without the marker above the name. That's basically what you're suggesting, and it would be a very workable solution to accessibility issues. Imzadi 1979 → 02:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Alphanumeric markers, especially the NSW ones are horrendously small at 20px. I wouldnt advocate going smaller than 35px for them (perhaps larger if there are issue with long ones like "C7xx"). I dont think disabling the marker should be forced as there will be routes that require larger shields for non-standard logos (eg. Remembrance Driveway, Grand Pacific Drive (no article yet), etc.), and they aren't allocations in the traditional sense. The original heading size problem is less of an issue with tourist routes anyway. The ACT parkways where I have used logos (which arent posted along the route), contain the name in plain text, so again, not an issue, if this changes, it can be reworked/revisited. Highway 1's article does refer to every usage of the "1" shield so again, the picture can be larger there. I support Evad's idea in principle - Nbound (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

IAR uses "junctions" because on many roads that best describes the connection. Currently, the Newcastle Link Road crosses the Sydney–Newcastle Freeway but there's no actual intersection. When the Hunter Expressway is finished, it will terminate at the Sydney–Newcastle Freeway, but there will still be no intersection. Heading south the connection is via an access ramp that joins the freeway in the same way that the link road connects. Heading north, the connection from the freeway to the expressway is via the same exit ramp that connects to the link road. Access to the link road from the expressway is also not via an intersection. This situation is very common in Australia. At Weakleys Drive there is an intersection (sort of) but listing that under "junction" is fine because an intersection is a junction, but a junction is not necessarily an intersection. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Former numbers

• We've had a request for this. I've noted a case of how such a thing was handled in the US. The current solution in IAusR is not ideal. Template parameters should have one usage, and they shouldn't be "misused" to output items for which they weren't designed. In this case of photo captions being used for other information, what happens when a photo is inserted? Where does the information go instead? Please discuss further. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally the editor will make sure the shielding information is kept below the image caption - if any. I realise this isnt ideal, which is precisely why it was requested. If we dont convert to IR, then we can add this function to IAusR instead at some point. 2 states/territories are completely revamping their numbering schemes this year alone, others have converted in the past, or may do so in future - Nbound (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't think that former numbers should be in the infobox - a mention in the text of the article should be sufficient. - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If no other editors want this I will use {{infobox road small}} as originally suggested by Izmadi, its not my preferred option, but I can work with it. - Nbound (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait up, we have {{Infobox road}}, {{Infobox street}} and now I find out we have {{Infobox road small}} as well??? How many infoboxes do we actually have for roads? What's wrong with using {{Infobox road}} with a subset of the parameters? Better still, why won't {{Infobox Australian road}} work? What are you trying to do? I'm sure we can incorporate your requirements. Sorry, but I haven't read the entire page so I missed the earlier comments - TLDR and all that. I was tempted to convert IAR to use {{Infobox}} when I merged {{Infobox Outback Track}} into it. Maybe we should look at that now, we can incorporate any needed fields while doing so. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just hoping to implement somewhere to add past or future shield changes as these affect many roads. At the moment adding something to the end of the IAusR photo caption seems to be the preferred way. (See Gold Coast Highway (former shielding), or Bruxner Highway (future shielding)) - Nbound (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Or Sydney–Newcastle Freeway. Yes, it does affect many roads and because of that, it's something we need to look at. I agree with Izmadi, template parameters should have one usage, and they shouldn't be "misused" to output items for which they weren't designed. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Also agreed, which is why the original suggestion was made (by me) for it to have its own parameter, rather than using the caption as it does now - Nbound (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This could be implemented within the |allocation= field. Just have a linebreak after the current route/s, then a line with "Formerley", "Future", "Under conversion", or whatever wording is needed, and then the relevant routes on another line. - Evad37 (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Other considerations

One problem with how IAusR is currently implemented/used is that graphics are used in place of text, not to supplement text. It's not an issue with the template itself, but rather more of how information is input into it. I can supply specific examples, but look through any of the US or Canadian FAs to see that whenever a graphic is used in the infobox, there is text adjacent to it. All of graphics are basically decorative, and if dropped (and one FAC had oppose !votes that requested all of the markers be removed except the one for the subject of the article), no meaning should be lost. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of the reason for that is WP:ACCESS by the way. --Rschen7754 05:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This isnt specifically IAusR related, and can be addressed using either template (and likely will be as we get around to articles). -- Nbound (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• One of the problems is that there are no official or common abbreviations for the route numbers. In the RJLs, this is handled by including the full route type and number in parentheses, but space is at much more of a premium in the infobox... - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Understandable, but omitting any text and relying only on the graphic is the accessibility issue. Some solution will have to be enacted eventually. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that the roads are referred to by name anyway, this use is not as big an issue as it would at first appear, a blind person in the NT is going to have heard all about the Kakadu Highway and probably not a single word in their life about Northern Territory State Route 21, or even worse NT SR21. The RJL has the space and therefore can contain miscellaneous information such as this for the small proportion of users that would find it useful. I am of course aware of other issues where roads have been listed as "Part of <State> Tourist Drive/Route: <icon>, <icon>, <icon>" or similar, and we can work on fixing these as we come accross them. The tourist or allocation sections can be used to effect this- Nbound (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The only issue i can see with that is the allocation section on non-alphanumeric routes, but we could likely use the alt text function on images to state something like "State Route Shield XXX" to provide the information without overcomplicating for a sighted reader. - Nbound (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That's only one part of accessibility though. If you just saw , would you necessarily know that they correspond to I-75 and US 23, respectively? Misplaced Pages is written for a global audience, and we may make the connections between marker shape/color and highway classification because we're familiar with the subject matter, but others may not. Using the graphics is great, but we need to make the meaning accessible to others who aren't as familiar with the subject matter. Also, alt text normally isn't provided for smaller icons like the 20px or even 35px highway markers used in articles. (See WP:ALT, but basically small icons like these are unlinked and lack alt text per that guidance.) That's why {{jct}} uses <marker graphic> <text>, even though the marker itself could be linked to point to the article, we always provide the link separately. Imzadi 1979 → 04:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You are transferring the American view onto Australian articles, we have different customs around highway naming here, as said above, the only time we would be using an image without additional text would during the allocation section only, and we can alt-text that section if need be this is because the allocation section would be the only section where the shield was specifically notable - in the RJL and everywhere else in the infobox the highway name and icon can be placed together. In regards to WP:ALT, it has no guidance on image size at all, and even shows some "unusual" examples at the bottom of the page (and even if it did state preferred image sizes, under the circumstances it would be reasonable to ignore them.) People who are using screen readers dont care how small the icon is thats being alt-texted, because they cant see it! Only the content is important. If it adds to the article, which this idea would, then there is no reason to argue against it based on an irrelevant parameter like image size. - Nbound (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If it still isnt clear;

• "Major junctions: <icon><highway name>"
• "RJL: <icon><highway name> - <destinations>"
• "Allocation: <icon, with descriptive alt text> between <location a> and <location b>"

Nbound (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You missed my point, I think. The point is that if there is a shield graphic shown, there needs to be some sort of name represented by that shield graphic. If this appeared in an allocation section " from X to Y", the shield has no meaning to a non-Australian, and might not have a lot of meaning to an Australian based on the conversation here. However, if it appeared as " Australian Route 23 from X to Y", then the connect between the shield and the highway type/number is imparted. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that in both examples, I supplied alt text for the shield, but it doesn't display in any capacity. It's only visible to screen readers and users with graphics turned off. If the graphics are displayed, no alt text appears. Imzadi 1979 → 05:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so if the graphics are turned off we can use alt-text, and if not people can rely on their eyesight. Australian roads on opposite sides of the country can use the exact same shielding so having BLAH Route XYZ somewhere could refer to any number of roads (some icons are used on MANY differing pages), stating a route belongs to a shield like that in text can be misleading as many readers (even some australians) may not realise that there could be other roads with the the exact same shielding. Having just the icon imparts that it is the shield used, and no meaning beyond that, which is what is needed. BLAH Route XYZ may not mean a single specific route. -- Nbound (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Depending on which state of the US we're discussing, could mean Delaware Route 1, Iowa Highway 1, or Kentucky Route 1; graphics simply can not be the only indication of the desired meaning just like color can't be the only indication of meaning in the junction list tables. For those colors, we require both a set of meaningful notes and the color key. For something like this, we really need the "caption" for what that shield graphic is supposed to mean. We may have to agree to disagree for now, but this is an issue that will come up with higher levels of article assessment like FAC and ACR. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute so all of this, for no gain? (Before and after)

Test Highway
Route information
Length	11.5 km (7.1 mi)
Allocation	between Timbuktu and Hell. between Hell and Fucking
Major junctions
South end	Monaro Highway, Pialligo / Campbell / Fyshwick, Canberra
Major intersections	Fairbairn Avenue
North end	Federal Highway, Gungahlin District / Majura District border, Canberra
Location
Country	Australia
Highway system
Highways in Australia National Highway Freeways in Australia

Test Highway
Route information
Length	11.5 km (7.1 mi)
Allocation	Australian Capital Territory National Route 23 between Timbuktu and Hell. Australian Capital Territory National Route 1 between Hell and Fucking
Major junctions
South end	Australian Capital Territory / New South Wales State Alpha-numeric Route B23 Monaro Highway, Pialligo / Campbell / Fyshwick, Canberra
Major intersections	Fairbairn Avenue
North end	Australian Capital Territory / New South Wales State Alpha-numeric Route A23 Federal Highway, Gungahlin District / Majura District border, Canberra
Location
Country	Australia
Highway system
Highways in Australia National Highway Freeways in Australia

As you can see, more harm then good. And the bottom doesnt hint that these shields dont apply to the particular highway, a highway doesnt "own" a unique shield in australia, shields are applied to it, even relatively standard rural routes may have multiple shields. Routes as a nationally unique stretch of road dont exist. The same "route" can exist interstate. Even Highway 1 is broken into 2 separate pieces in NSW by Metroad 1 signage. Think of the allocation section less about being part of a larger route, and more about how the highway is designated along its length - Nbound (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In the example above the Federal Highway isnt "the" A23, the A23 just applies to the last few km of it and then the next several roads along the "route". The Federal Highway itself is largely the M23, theoretically, a motorway grade extension could be built on either end of it, could continue the M23 designation. A road can also go A1, M1, A1, M1 for example as its quality changes. -- Nbound (talk)

Alpha-numeric is entirely redundant, and nobody has advocated for that phrase to be added to any infobox. --Rschen7754 15:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It isnt redundant, there are states (Victoria and Queensland) which have retained both the old state routes, and alphanumeric state routes. Gold Coast Highway (Queensland State Route 2), for example, is different to, and not connected to the various roads that make up Queensland State Alphanumeric Route 2 (Warrego Highway (A2), and the various motorways carrying the M2 shield). - Nbound (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

" Monaro Highway (State Route B23)" is the most that should be used. There is no need for "alphanumeric" to be in there, just like there is no need for "State Route 5" to be "numeric State Route 5" - whilst technically correct, both "alphanumeric" and "numeric" are redundant to explaining what the route marker means. The infobox isn't the place to educating people on road routes (the "correct" place is within the text of the subject routes, or in articles such as List of road routes in Western Australia), and just including the word alphanumeric doesn't make it obvious to someone not familiar with the subject that the A2 and M2 routes are connected, while State Route 2 is not. Also, spelling out state / territory names, or even including them for each route, is unprecedented – we don't do so in junction lists, so why should we for the infobox? - Evad37 (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Having both say "State Route 2", would both be incorrect and misleading, if we are not educating people on routes, then there is no reason to include them at all, it is extraneous information. The is no reason to sacrifice accuracy for perceived completedness - Nbound (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

But they wouldn't both be "State Route 2". They would be "Gold Coast Highway (State Route 2)", "Warrego Highway (State Route A2)", etc. I didn't say we shouldn't educate people on routes, just that the infobox isn't the place to have detailed information such as the A2 continues into the M2 and then back into A2, which is separate to State Route 2. Those explanations belong in article text for the roads with those routes, and/or in articles/lists on routes in a state. - Evad37 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, how about something like {{abbr|]|State Route 23}}, which renders like . This displays alternate text to readers with the images turned on by using tooltips. - Evad37 (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be very much preferred by me, I am happy to drop this if we can all work with Evad's suggestion - Nbound (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't work though. The little dotted underline doesn't appear (it's not text) to indicate that there's additional content, and the popup doesn't work on touchscreen devices like an iPad or an iPhone. Imzadi 1979 → 01:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The dotted line does appear or or , it was just rendered too large (i could still see it anyway). Even in this example, both State Route 23 and National Route 23 can refer to the exact same route, which is misleading as the text reinforces there are 2 separate routes, rather than being quiet on the subject, without the extra information clicking on the linked highway would then show how a particular "route" continues, with the tooltip just showing the shield designation. - Nbound (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*Shrugs* It doesn't appear in Safari on a Mac nor on an iPad. Imzadi 1979 → 02:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well we can hardly be to blame if Safari doesnt want to keep up-to-date with web standards. My android phone is out of action at the moment but im about 90% sure tooltips worked on it. - Nbound (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Since Safari uses the same rendering engine (WebKit) as other web browsers, it's not just an issue with one browser. Now the tooltip works with a mouse on a desktop, but it doesn't work on a touchscreen where there is really no ability to "hover" over a selection without tapping it. Either way, this solution isn't quite as ideal as actually making the text visible in the first instance. Imzadi 1979 → 02:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Next idea: Use small text, such as I have done on this example. Its not ideal, still pushing some entries in the junction lists onto a second line, but is better than full text size, which results in some being on three lines. - Evad37 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I personally don't have a problem with the small text. --Rschen7754 02:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The small text works for me... it keeps the meaning of the shield accessible without being too obtrusive. Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider the M1 Pacific Motorway, it connects to both the Gold Coast Highway (State Route 2), and the Logan Motorway (State Route 2) . Listing this in this way is entirely misleading. Again, if we must sacrifice accuracy for perceived completeness, we should just drop shielding alltogether. - Nbound (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider the Hoddle Highway in Melbourne instead, it connects to both the Nepean Highway (State Route 3), and the Eastern Freeway (State Route 3) - Nbound (talk)

How does means "State Route 2"? Surley it is "State Route A2" (emphasis addedd), while is "State Route 2". Why do want to give markers like the same alternate text when they are clearly not all the same image? - Evad37 (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Because A is just the quality/importance indicator of a particular section, A2, B2, and C2, all refer to the same route. The two M1 ends of the Pacific Motorway in a couple of months wont be a separate route to the A1 section in the middle. The two M1 sections are also no more important to each other than any other section of Route 1 road. (I was trying to think of oddball test cases for my infobox above, but without thinking too deeply i assumed the A23/B23 designation would be fine) - Nbound (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, lets get back to basics. All we really want is a textual representation of the marker images. How about just using the alphanumeric route number for the alphanumeric state routes, which would result in something like " Logan Motorway (M2)" (or " M2 Logan Motorway" if you prefer). The numeric-only state routes can be kept as-is, ie " Gold Coast Highway (State Route 2)". The route numbers could also be linked to the appropriate section of a list article (which may need to be created/updated for some states) - Evad37 (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the road authorities in each state use their own internal road assignments. The shields are just for the public only, and therefore, do not have to be entirely logical in their design (because noone plans according to them in the detail we are trying to get into). The RMS internal designation for the Monaro Highway is actually HW19 (Highway 19) rather than Highway 23 or B23 (besides they arent going to update all their paperwork each time shielding changes as it does every 10 or 20 yrs), and some "highways" to the public are actually just classified as main roads (Kings Highway is just MR51 (Main Road 51), not Highway 52)- The Federal Highway has its own HW number despite being part of the same public "route" as the Monaro Highway. They just got the same designation because the join roughly nose-to-tail. - Nbound (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, many "main roads" are actually highways, and some roads that have completely different (or multiple) names on street signs and maps compared to the actual highway/main roads name according to the internal classification. However, as these systems are only for internal use, there's not much point in including them in the infobox, and reliable (or any) sources for these may be hard to come across (unless you happen work for them, I guess). - Evad37 (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

They are often listed in things like the government gazette, or in other internal or legal information - Nbound (talk)

In any case, its not info that is needed in the infobox. - Evad37 (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I never proposed it belonged there - Nbound (talk)

How about we leave the highway numbers in the infobox without further explanation, but go into the actual detail in the article prose. For example an allocation section we could specifically state when and where allocation changes in the prose (even in an RJL style list if required), other interesting information, such as the official internal classifications could also be delivered in detail. Thoughts? - Nbound (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

For example the M3 (Melbourne) articles would state something along the lines of, its part of the alphanumeric state route 3, which was formed from the old state route 11, state route 83, and the old F83 freeway designation, while the specific highway/freeway in question follows <specific route(s)>. It shouldnt be confused with state route 3 (Nepean Highway) which is a remnant of the earlier system that was not converted to the alphanumeric system.

Similar information would also help explain why the Syd-Newcastle and Southern Freeways in sydney are still occasionally called the F3, and F6 respectively. A gallery of former shielding could then be listed with appropriate information included for those using screenreaders and non standard devices. This section would also provide an appropriate place to add the internal road designation for interested readers - Nbound (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with a section like this, provided that it can be adequately sourced. For roads were there isn't much to say about the allocations, it may be better to integrate it into either the history or route description sections. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "leave the highway numbers in the infobox without further explanation", can you please elaborate? - Evad37 (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically we leave the box saying <icon> <highway name> (no spelling out of the icons), as long as everything referenced in the infobox is then explained in an appropriate section in the article. Allocations in an allocation or the history section, linked highways could have the icons spelt out in the junction listing (ie. <M2 icon> <M2 in text> <TEST MOTORWAY> or <SR2> <State Route 2> <Test Highway>. It could be added (even hardcoded or switched) into the boxes, to see the appropriate sections (linked) in the article for more detail on routes.

For alphanumerics its probably best just to spell them out without adding any mention of routes as you suggested earlier, this will hopefully lead people to not necessarily think its is a different route to the A or B level of that road (as in places such as the UK, M1 and A1 are actually different roads, not different quality sections of the same route). This isnt a perfect solution, but hopefully less messy than others. It may be neccessary to add in the state on some border crossing routes as well with a (linked) abbreviation, such as: <NSW> <State Route 123>, <VIC> <State Route 456>?

-- Nbound (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see this as solving the whole problem, at least not in a way that would meet FA / MOS / WP:ACCESS criteria, which has been explained by others above. I think we should keep trying to get something better now, rather than when an article is at WP:FAC. I think we were close with the "<route marker image> <highway name> (<route marker as text in small font>)" format, but perhaps we need better text descriptions of the marker images. This is what I've had in my head, but there may be better alternatives:

• Foobar Highway (National Highway 1)
• Foobar Highway (National Route 1)
• Foobar Highway (State Route 2)
• Foobar Highway (Tourist Drive 2)
• Foobar Highway (M1)

The text above accurately describe/explain the marker images, while detailed information on routes can be given in the article text (per your suggested article section above). - Evad37 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will work with this, I dont particularly like it, but for the sake of progressing this discussion, I will work with it. - Nbound (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Whats our plan on concurrencies? Such as the Monaro and Snowy Mountains Highways between Cooma and a little south of Nimmitabel.

• Monaro Highway / Snowy Mountains Highway (National Highway 23 / National Highway 18)

or

• Monaro Highway (National Highway 23 / National Highway 18) (This is how it is actually signposted during the concurrency - if this was chosen, it would be best to make sure the main shield is placed first)

-- Nbound (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should usually go with what's actually signposted, so that would be the second option. Though in the article's junction list table, which isn't as limited in space, you could have something like "Foo Road to Example Highway". The shields should be presented in whichever order makes the most sense - for a lot of cases this may be numerical order, but it doesn't need to apply to every case. - Evad37 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary destinations

Can the label for this be altered based on a #switch for the |type= parameter? This would gives some indication of when the locations are merely suburbs within a city, rather than cities or towns or other settlements. The code IAusR uses is:

{{#switch: {{{type|}}}
| highway = '''Major settlements'''
| freeway = '''Major suburbs'''
| city highway = '''Major suburbs'''
| road = '''Major suburbs'''
| rural road = '''Major settlements'''
| street = '''Suburb'''
| '''via''' }}

- Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This should be easy to accommodate; we already have a few switches in place now since "Primary destinations" is linked for UK articles to an article explaining them. We have a similar switch in another location parameter to alter a label for one province of Canada. Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldnt street be "Suburb(s)" or similar. Some streets will traverse more than one suburb. There probably needs to be an override that just says destinations (or similar), even if a road type is chosen, as there will be routes that serve both towns and suburbs. - Nbound (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, issues like that were part of the reason the US ditched cities/villages/towns and stuck to just counties. The UK has well-defined primary destinations to help remove the ambiguity. This is something locals will have to decide, so I'm limiting my comments here to what has worked or not worked elsewhere. As for plural vs. singular, counties is always plural, even on single-county roadways like M-553 (Michigan highway). Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Colours

We might as well discuss what colour schemes to use in the infobox. I have no idea where the current colours came from. Do we want to keep using them, or base colours off those used in route markers, or have a single colour scheme for all roads, or something else? One problem with route marker colours would be roads with multiple routes - though there could be a hierarchy like National Highway, National Route, State Route, Tourist Drive. - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The colors came from IAusR itself, which I think was set up to match other Australian infoboxes. In the US, we use the same shade of green as the background on guide signage for most highways. Things like Forest Highway 13 or Brockway Mountain Drive use the shade of brown from those signs. Roads under construction, but not yet opened to traffic in whole or in part, use an orange like on M-231 (Michigan highway). (While County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan) was an active proposal, it was orange, but once that proposal was cancelled, the color was switched.) Former highways are in gray like U.S. Route 16 in Michigan, former in this case means the designation has been decommissioned. In Canada, freeways are in a dark blue, like on Ontario Highway 401, but otherwise a similar color scheme to the US.

The nice thing about how the color subtemplates are now done is that they are set up by country with the orange and gray options done globally. If a country is not set up, there's a default shade of blue applied, but otherwise any country can set up any color scheme by roadway type that's desired. Imzadi 1979 → 02:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The color subtemplate is now a Lua module, so unless you know Lua, it's a bit more difficult to set up than it used to be. –Fredddie™ 02:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

For multi-standard roads- you would just colour for either the highest standard road type, or the dominant road type depending on future discussions. It would need to be done on a state by state basis due to the differences in the highway standards used. Though some things like tourist drives could receive a maroonish-brown colour in every state as users from every state would be used to that colour being asssociated with tourist routes and signs. - Nbound (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever colors are assigned, the current gray should be changed for whichever type assignment in Australia. Gray in the rest of the world is used for former highways, usually meaning cases like U.S. Route 16 in Michigan where the designation is no longer in use, or cases like County Road 595 where the road was never built. Honestly, I'd base the colors off the signage as much as possible, either using the background color of the guide signs, or matching the color of the markers. Imzadi 1979 → 13:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Testcases

I've started Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Australian Roads/Infobox testcases as a project sandbox for visually comparing {{Infobox Australian road}} and {{Infobox road}}, side by side. Please add more testcases (or just experiment with the templates) to see if any more issues come up – though its probably best to keep discussion here so that its all together. - Evad37 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Conversion progress

In the ACT there are only a handful of roads editors, so I just went ahead and started converting roads. No complaints thus far. (some examples: Majura Parkway, Gungahlin Drive Extension, Majura Road, Northbourne Avenue)

Ive pre-converted (its edited out with <!--comment tags-->) a few roads that im not quite comfortable converting to infobox road until we've gone further testing the proposal with other editors, lest it cause an uproar (eg. Barton Highway or Federal Highway), others might like to do likewise if they want to get a headstart down the track (Ive usually been AUshielding these articles as I pass them)...

Nbound (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you should hold definitely hold off on converting infoboxes until there is (informed) consensus to do so. We probably need to hold a formal RfC, and invite editors from WP:AUS and WP:HWY - Evad37 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should do a RfC, the remaining issues are relaitively minor ones (heading names, colours, etc.) I will hold off on any more conversions (even in the ACT) until then. You may wish to use the roads ive done as examples (all ACT controlled access roads + selected limited access roads), though being in the ACT they may not transalte across as well as shielded states. I did do Metroad 10 earlier today aswell, but it was already {{infobox road}}. I should note that some of these articles did not have any infoboxes at all, and arent technically conversions. - Nbound (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... Minor issues for you you and me may not be so minor for other editors... - Evad37 (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should state it for what it actually is, rather than identifying problems for a possible future change, lets not beat around the bush; its reasonable to expect that after these issues are identified and fixed, there will be a conversion. The two propositions should be combined, lest we be accused of being sneaky, or under the influence of a conspiracy US editors, just get it in the open. It should also be mentioned that we can keep {{infobox Australian road}} as a backup in case of major problems (ie. if your tricky particular road has a problem, fall back to {{infobox Australian road}} and we will fix it), deleting {{infobox Australian road}} can be a separate issue much further down the line - Nbound (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead, I'll be offline for a while - other things to do IRL. (By the way, I posted that message to try to allay concerns that it would be implemented without making the necessary changes) - Evad37 (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Australian_Roads/Infobox_testcases - RfC proposal testcase - thoughts everyone? I was thinking of giving it a subpage here and notifying editors via WP:AUS and WP:HWY's talk pages. - Nbound (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Converting live articles to use IR should definitely not happen. By all means, create infoboxes for those roads on the testcases page, but converting without consensus got a lot of people upset the last two times and is why both TfDs failed. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you would like I can convert or comment out the few articles I have converted, back to their previous versions. - Nbound (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

 DoneI have converted the vast majority of affected ACT articles back to their previous states. -- Nbound (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The RfC you've drafted seems okay, I just made a couple of minor adjustments. - Evad37 (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)  Done RfC:Infobox Road proposal - Nbound (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Summary

So a summary of the agreed or un-opposed points so far (please add any Ive missed):

• Fuel and facilites to be combined into the generic restrictions section - further details to be in article.
• Documentation needs to be updated to reflect all changes
• May need to modify loop coding (Perhaps to just say "Tourist loop" only, on ACT tourist drives)
• Allocation section required (and already added)
• Roadway type section proposal appears unpopular - will leave for article prose
• Tourist section required (now switched on, and moved -below- allocation)
• Further discussion required about the Junction list section heading. (Junctions vs Intersections vs Intersections/Interchanges, etc.)
• Former/future shields to use last line(s) in allocation section.
• Highway shields to be named according to route type designation (SRXX = State Route XX), alphanumeric shields to be named literally according to designation (M2 = M2), this is in small text after the highway name. <icon><Highway><designation>
• Concurrencies should be listed on junction lists as signposted (ie. the "main" highway is listed, and one is suppressed) <icon1><icon2><main highway><designation1><designation2>
• It may be worth elaborating on allocation history/future (and internal designations) in many articles within its own section
• Destinations code to be changed to match IAusR, exact usage will rely on future discussions (to decide what qualifies as a destination). Some rewording of destinations headings may be required.
• Further discussions as to colour of infoboxes, and may require state specific colouring
• (semi-related) A good idea to use "real-world" NSW alphanumeric shields, rather than the "promotional" style created by Bidgee.
• Further discussion required on how to denote destinations/locations - a semi-standard appears to have emerged.

We need to finish these off, and/or begin approaching other stakeholders (WP:AUS and WP:HWY namedly) with a proposal for consideration.

Some goals would probably be:

• Very short term (days to weeks)- gain approval by other stakeholders
• Short term (weeks) - Convert all remaining IAusR articles to IR, prepare to delete IAusR after a limited period without problems (3-6months?). It may be worth archiving its code somewhere if ever needed.
• Medium term (months)- Finalise exact guidelines on infobox presentation
• Medium - long term (months - continuous) - Re-assess Australian subversion of IR, and request modifications for any required changes, review presentation guidelines etc.

Thoughts? - Nbound (talk)

Sounds good. I'm going to attempt today to finish recoding some of the changes above. As noted, some have already been done, but there are some tweaks to be applied. I'm going to leave the destinations coding alone for now though. There's no need to archive the coding of IAusR though; the way deletions are handled on the site, any administrator could undelete the template at any time if we needed the code. Imzadi 1979 → 12:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Turned out to be quite easy. A quick summary:

• |allocation= uses Allocation: as the label for Australia, and it works with the label Component highways: for all other countries. In the sandbox, it has been moved above |tourist=
• A new |tloop= has been added that displays "Tourist loop around <tloop>" as an option over the existing |beltway= |orbital= or |loop= Let me know what the link should be instead of ].

Unless I've missed something, that should be the only updates to the template itself needed. As for documentation, {{infobox road/doc}} is freely editable and anyone can update/revise the wording there. A future standards page in the AURD project area could also be written to provide a more specific and simplified take on the parameters and usage needed for Australia. Imzadi 1979 → 12:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Imzadi; For the tourist loop I just need it to say "Tourist Loop", can you add a switch to turn off the 'around <variable>' part? They dont loop around anything tangible that can be explained in a few words.

I will work on the docs once the transfer is official and everyone is happy (I assume Evad will probably have plenty of edits too) - as it stands atm its a mix of the two existing templates on the generic docs page which could be summed up pretty well on an Australian only subpage - which would also give us somewhere to create presentation guideline examples for non-WP:AURD editors at some future point in time. For those that are curious ive knocked up a reasonably good conversion of the Hume Highway infobox (quite big), in the testcases sandbox Evad linked to before (including pre- and post-alphanumeric conversion)- Nbound (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a piece of coding so that if |tloop=none is set, then it will just say "Tourist loop" but if it were |tloop=Canberra it would say "Tourist loop around Canberra". How's that work for you? Imzadi 1979 → 13:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Perfect :D ... just out of curiousity, does it work on the other loop options, our just tourist loops? - Nbound (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just that one; the others should only be used to say it loops around a central city as a beltway/orbital/etc. Imzadi 1979 → 13:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the locations/destinations code should be implemented via a new parameter & label/data pair in the template code, that can be hidden for countries other than Australia - such |locations=. It would then use the switch code as described in sections above, based on route type specified in the |type= parameter, but could have a default value such as "Primary destinations:" if |type= is empty or doesn't match the defined types. - Evad37 (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That might be easier, however I'm curious on something. For the RJLs, we have LGAs listed, which are roughly equivalent to counties in the US. I'm wondering if those shouldn't be added as well? This could be in addition to more specific locations. Like I mentioned above, in the US we ran into issues with labeling cities as "Major cities" given the subjective nature of the word "major". Imzadi 1979 → 15:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

LGAs dont have the same importance as counties do in the US. To the average Australian it would mean very little. Up until this point I had mostly been basing my RJL destinations of what was actually signposted, as seen by google street view. The main destinations for the infobox would probably be whats listed on the large distance signs.

Example:

File:A1BruceHwy.PNG

For our American friends, the cities in parenthesis are those located off the highway but within a reasonable distance. - Nbound (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Are "Major cities", "Major suburbs", or "Major settlements" any more subjective than "Major junctions"? By the way, I think we should follow the US standard of limiting the number of junctions in the infobox - having 18 or 24 listed, as in the Hume Highway testcases, is too many (makes the infobox very long), especially given that they will be included in the article's RJL - no info will be lost by excluding some.

I am undecided about LGAs at the moment, but including them should only be in addition to and not instead of other location information. - Evad37 (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is the tinge of subjectivity to "Major junctions" I'll grant, but normally we either objectively limit them to only Interstates/freeways, or include other US Highways or state highways to keep under the limit with a geographic spread.

Let me code in the LGA and locations parameters into the sandbox as discussed, and that way AURD can develop project standards for their usage. If one or the other is deprecated or goes unused, it can be removed from the template later. Imzadi 1979 → 03:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've added |lga= and |locations= to the sandboxed template. The label for locations uses a simplified version of the switch Evad wrote up, and the label for lga uses the abbr from PPtl|AUSinttop}}. They should be ready for testing and tweaking now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

With a bit of tweaking, I've got it working for the Mitchell Freeway testcase. At this stage I think we should leave the LGA code in there so that |lga= is available as an optional parameter. It should be considered on an article-by-article basis, as it is obviously more useful for a road passing through only a few LGAs, and less useful as a long list for long highways that go through a large number of LGAs. - Evad37 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The remaining issues are the Junction list section heading, and infobox colours. It may be prudent to keep using the same format as IAusR, to help ease the transition. They can continue to be discussed later, but I wouldn't want either issue to be a reason for a transition process to be derailed (ie, no consenus/opposed) – although the default colour should be changed from the current grey to avoid clashing with IBR's use of grey for former routes. The heading requires no change in IBR, as IAusR also uses "Major junctions". The colours specified in the protected Module:Infobox road/color should be cleaned up. Whilst it is mostly correct, "M", "A", etc are not needed as possible values for |type=, and some values are missing. The following code should be translated into Lua (adapted from IAusR, but I changed the default value to yellow text on green background, as used in Highway 1 (Australia))

{{#switch: {{{type|}}}
| freeway = background:#D2E2F9;
| highway | city highway = background:#E9F9D2;
| road | rural road = background:#FFFFE0;
| street = background:#F9E2D2;
| track = background:#fee8ab;
| #default = background:#3A7119; color:#FFE133; }}

        do -- Australia
            local AUS = Country:new{default = "background:#3A7119; color:#FFE133;"}
            AUS:addTypesAsColor({"freeway"}, "background:#D2E2F9;")
            AUS:addTypesAsColor({"highway", "city highway"}, "background:#E9F9D2;")
            AUS:addTypesAsColor({"road", "rural road"}, "background:#FFFFE0;")
            AUS:addTypesAsColor({"street"}, "background:#F9E2D2;")
            AUS:addTypesAsColor({"track"}, "background:#fee8ab;")
            colors.AUS = AUS
        end -- Australia

- Evad37 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added code to module page. --Rschen7754 08:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think LGAs are a little pointless. The only ones where people outside the area will know where they are, are those named after a large town within the region (which would likely be named in the location section anyway if the road went anywhere near it). Given the size of some LGAs some road may also pass through some sections of an LGA and yet be nowhere near a settlement, or even not have any direct road connection to settlements within the LGA. -- Nbound (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Like anything else, they'd be optional I think. In the US, before we deprecated cities/villages/towns, we used to only list counties up to n counties (I think it was 8 or 9), and if there were more than than, we were supposed to switch to cities... but I bucked that "rule" and just listed all of the counties anyway and skipped the cities. Imzadi 1979 → 03:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Australia doesnt have any formal local government heirarchy, all LGAs are of equal status. Jumping to cities isnt really an option here either as "Cities" can be smaller than regular LGAs, there isnt any particular set of characteristics that define one or the other. Take the City of Queanbeyan (Pop: 40000), and Port Macquarie-Hastings Council (Pop:70000) where the main town is of equivalent population to the City of Queanbeyan. All LGAs have essentially the same powers regardless of size or designation. Their powers are restricted in comparison to US LGAs aswell. Our LGAs generally provide things like Municipal Services (garbage disposal, parks, local roads), local by-laws (alocohol free zones, parking restrictions, etc.), libraries, town planning and development approvals, and not too much else. Traditionally county based services in many regions in the US, such as Law Enforcement, Health, and so on and so forth, are provided by the state and/or federal governments. -- Nbound (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so that doesn't dispute that including the LGAs would be optional, could be inserted on a case-by-case basis, and if the parameter ends up unused, it could be removed later, but if it's never inserted into the template, it can never be an option in the first place. Again, I left that up to the editors working on each article to decide as appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Implementation

Looking over the list at the head of the previous subsection, we have left

• Documentation, which can't be updated for new parameters until the live template is changed;
• Colours, which can be updated and tweaked in the subtemplate
• NSW alphanumeric shields, but these don't impact this template, and in fact impact IAusR
• Destinations/locations, which were implemented to match the labels in IAusR

I guess I'm at a point where I think that we should decide if there's consensus here to implement the changes from {{infobox road/sandbox}} in {{infobox road}} so we can make an edit request. If we can't point to consensus to make the change, most admins will reject the request. This isn't to say editors might not run into unforeseen minor issues in the future, but we have to start some place. So, in short, are we ready to make that edit request? Imzadi 1979 → 06:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Go for it, but we'll have to ask the other wikiprojects before any page by page infobox conversion begins. There is still the matter of junction list heading, but Im sure that adding an AUS switch will be pretty uncontroversial in future. - Nbound (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we are ready to request the changes in the sandbox version be implemented. - Evad37 (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request made. Of course, if we find things to tweak in the future, we can make other requests. (If they're small enough, we can ask one of the other USRD/HWY members with the admin bit to made minor adjustments, but for something this big, a formal edit request is a good idea.) Imzadi 1979 → 08:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been implemented, and the documentation has been updated with the new changes. Feel free to copy edit as needed, although I would really encourage a AURD subpage with specific documentation that omits the parameters that aren't needed. Imzadi 1979 → 08:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have started AURD specific documentation at the testcases sandbox. Once we're happy with what it says we can move it to its own page - Evad37 (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Colours revisted

Now that we have the standard colors for route markers, we can discuss the option of using route marker colours. I checked all the options with Snook's color contrast tool, and these are the results:

Yellow on green is not compliant, so we can't use the colours of the route markers, unless we only use the background colours with white text (or black for national routes). As far as I can see, the options are:

1. Keep the current system of colours varying with the |type= parameter
2. As above, but choose new colours
3. Use a single colour scheme for all roads, white on standard green as per directional signage
4. Use the background colours of the route markers. Would require an additional parameter, as |type= currently controls both the locations label and the colours

• For all options, the global infobox road colors for under construction, former, and historic/scenic would be available via the |header_type= parameter

- Evad37 (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, for the UK, |header_type=minor turns the color for |type=A from yellow on green (different shades in the UK) to black on white, so it is possible to tweak the type → color relationship. Imzadi 1979 → 05:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Im interested to see what you guys come up with, I do have a few reservations about any shield colour based system in the ACT (no shields). -- Nbound (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of going sign-based. That is, all of the guide signs are white on green. The UK has three different styles of signs based on the road's classification, so that's where they get three colors. –Fredddie™ 11:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer sign-based like Fredddie as it does keep things simpler. Imzadi 1979 → 16:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone want to knock one up and we can see how it looks? - Nbound (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's some mockups made by altering the infobox road sandbox - Evad37 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Template:Multicol-end Looks pretty good- Nbound (talk)

Restrictions

Road restrcitions are a factor on Western Australian roads, Take Leach Hwy from Albany Hwy to Kwninana Freeway vehicle length must be under 19meters other road like Great Northern Hwy its a gradual increase from Roe Hwy out, Bulls brook, and Wubin, something like Nicholson road its sectional. Other roads have designated by pass routes through towns. While this is primarily a unique feature of WA, NT FNQld roads some SA and NSW also have designated routes. It'd be better to include this function now rather than argue for its inclusion once we've been amalgamated into IR Gnangarra 05:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

|restrictions= is already in IR, and already in use in four US road featured articles: Brockway Mountain Drive, H-58 (Michigan county highway), Interstate 696, and M-185 (Michigan highway). Imzadi 1979 → 06:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gnangarra, we had the same query earlier in the discussion, what we've come up with so far is a short description next to that tag to cover the issue (eg. "Partially closed in winter due to snow" on a road in the Australian Alps, or "Limited fuel available" in remote areas). Specific information such as the places between where the road is closed, or places where fuel is available can then be mentioned in the article. Essentially, the same process as you would use now, except the multiple restriction options in IAusR are combined into a single restrictions section. Actual usage will be left upto commonsense. For example ACT Tourist Drive 5 has a 44km stretch without petrol (and is signed as such), but i probably wouldnt bother adding it to an infobox for it - Nbound (talk) 09:45, 4 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 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: and - 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? –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)

–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 Misplaced Pages: 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 . - 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 () - 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 (VIC), (SA), (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... . 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 . 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 (page 30):

- 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 - Evad37 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Satin Alumininum is too dark TD6TD6(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: , 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

The QLD document linked above () 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), 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: ALT 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)

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 ).

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 ] (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)

• Project-Class Australia road transport pages
• NA-importance Australia road transport pages
• Project-Class Road transport pages
• NA-importance Road transport pages
• WikiProject Australian Roads articles
• Project-Class Highways pages
• NA-importance Highways pages
• WikiProject Highways articles
• Project-Class Australia pages
• NA-importance Australia pages
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• WikiProject Australian Roads