![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there any reason the A440 South Gippsland Highway is missing from the A-routes list? I could try and add it myself, but I don't really know how I'd get the exact length of the road. – numbermaniac 07:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The following alphanumeric routes have been signed, but temporarily coverplated with the old SR shields
Why is every route entry in this page being duplicated? It appears each route entry - for the most part already completed - is being duplicated to indicate route allocation in both directions, which is understandable but completely unnecessary. Before, each entry was completed from beginning to end in one direction, with any alterations of route allocation in the reverse direction clearly noted. Now it appears user User:Thent1234 has decided to unilaterally add in extra details that are not really needed, without consultation. Granted, if permission for such a major upheaval of the page's information was sought and given off-page, then I sincerely apologise. But it is usually customary to ask such on the Talk page of the article being edited, and I do not see such a request here. The same user also appears to have copied content wholesale from another Victoria routes article (the List_of_road_routes_in_Victoria_(numeric) page) quite unnecessarily, as the content was already available there, and the previous wiki-link at the beginning of the article clearly referring to this has now been removed. Replacement text also has a mess of whitespace severely impacting the presentation of information, with far more mis-aligned text and paragraph breaks, further hampering article readability.
It appears the user has altered the Victorian listing of roads simply because they were allowed to do so on NSW road route and QLD route road pages and assumed they would do so on the Victorian page (again, without asking permission first), without considering both the existing listed routes were already correct and complete, and the sheer number of listed Victorian routes as compared to other states: while duplication of non-Victorian routes might make sense due to a far-smaller number of gazetted routes in that state, duplicating nearly 700 existing entries for Victoria in an already fairly-lengthy article makes it far harder to comprehend. Initiative is all well and good, but simply thinking "I did it for other articles, I'll do it to this one" without consultation on an article that many other users besides User:Thent1234 have laboured on for the last few years isn't justification for unilaterally making such edits.
The end result is a confusing, incomplete (yes I understand it's a work in progress, but the description still stands), and nearly-unreadable mess of information, most of which was already available in its previous state. I would politely request a rollback of the article back to its original state, or at least a deletion of the superfluous entries, until a decision can be made.
Aside, the account for User:Thent1234 appears to have been recently banned indefinitely as a sockpuppet for numerous defacements of previous articles.
218.215.97.120 ( talk) 07:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Evad37: It appears that no Project member is watching this article. I was under the impression that all of the Thent changes were to be reversed, and I specifically asked for an exemption for the Queensland list as I had already “fixed” it. Downsize43 ( talk) 02:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Last time I went to Victoria (4 - 2 weeks ago) I saw a bunch of new routes that aren't on here.
Seen photos but not physically been there:
On the North East Link map:
and also found these routes in the Melway Edition 47:
However, I am reluctant to add these routes until we find a photo for all of these, as well as I do not know too much about roads, also not a Victorian resident and these are some that I spotted or seen photos of.
RealLifeLorefan80 ( talk) 23:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
They also found:
and MR77 has been half decommissioned.
RealLifeLorefan80 ( talk) 22:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Also for the photos: A16 - see link above A50 - thanks to Alex Csar for the photo A81 - again, its his photo A93 - here A95 - here A60 - here B716 - here
Thanks to this Aussie Highways group that I found for the photos. hopefully we can start updating these.
RealLifeLorefan80 ( talk) 04:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is naturally going to be a bit difficult, as any system changing from one style of allocations to another will tend to be initially confusing. We can't really rely on Google Maps as they have been known to be incorrect (verification using GSV is good, but that only gives us a new route for a portion of its allocation, not its beginning and end points): we should ultimately rely on VicRoads info, but sadly they aren't as helpful releasing info either.
We want our information to be as correct as it can be at the time we add it: could I politely ask we not add proposed routes into the article until the road project/reallocation has happened and is officially live? Lordstorm ( talk) 02:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Some of Melbourne's route allocations have an altered colour to indicate toll-roads (eg: on Citylink South,
on Citylink West,
on Eastlink). Would it worthwhile adding them back into this article?
Lordstorm (
talk)
06:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, do it. AussieCoinCollector ( talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 09:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Done, used Road Routes of Queensland as a template; thankfully Victoria only has three toll roads in total. Lordstorm ( talk) 11:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I notice that the West Gate Tunnel has been added to the table as M10, but are we actually sure about that one? We already have an A10, which is the Princes Highway in Geelong. I somewhat doubt they would use the same number for two different roads like this. Do we have a source on that road being assigned M10? – numbermaniac 01:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Why have a whole load of unverified routes been added? Most of these appear to be proposed routes to eventually replace existing State Routes, but the only source for most of these is a Groups thread, hardly a reliable or trustworthy source. I thought the agreement was to only add in routes once they had been actually seen in the wild (ie: not cover-plated) or had been listed from an official government source (ie: SRNS), as already previously stated here? Some are also from projects that are currently under construction, and so haven't had the chance to be allocated yet? Shouldn't these be removed until they have been visually verified, officially sourced, or the project is completed? 218.215.97.120 ( talk) 14:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
With a lot of recent unverified edits on this page recently, we need to restate acceptable guidelines as to what to add.
As mentioned here earlier, the Melbourne system is currently in a state of flux, changing from one allocation system to another, and this will to some initial confusion. However, we want our information to be as correct as it can be at the time we add it: this means information should have a reliable source. Not a source mentioned somewhere off another site: sources must be listed here.
Sources must be official: these are route routes allocated to Victorian roads, so in this case, a Victorian government or VicRoads source are ultimately the only acceptable sources. This does not include, however, VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manuals (TEMs): while some of their allocations used in these documents have later turned out to be correct, many others have not; this information is speculative at best and is usually used only as examples. The only real online source we currently have is the Route Numbering Scheme (SRNS). Sadly, it doesn't seem to he updated regularly, so a work-around for that is simply to get visual confirmation: a detailed photo (or capture on Google Street View) of the route allocation is acceptable. Mapping tools (like OpenStreetMap) are not reliable sources, because anyone can edit them: this includes Google Maps, which may use official details but does get things wrong, and is updated by a corporation, so their priorities aren't the same. Online groups (like discussion boards, Google Groups, roads forums) are not reliable sources, for obvious reasons.
Also, it has been previously established that no proposed routes are to be listed until the change has actually gone live and the new route has been sign-posted, because it can be changed or even cancelled (it is "proposed" after all), and can be incredibly confusing if it ends up used elsewhere; this includes projects under construction (and their documents) using future allocations, for similar reasons: the route is only live once the road has been officially opened. Some routes have been converted but remain coverplated: these really aren't live either until the new signage is displayed and cover-plating is removed.
Lastly, regarding the edits themselves: edits are far less likely to be overwritten or reverted if users sign in and use edit summaries! Anonymous edits are automatically suspect (and Wikipedia already heavily discourages this) and edit summaries make version control easier....and is just being nice, people!
Trivial, unverified, unsourced, anonymous edits will be reverted. We are trying to be factual: discussion, conjecture, and "what-if" scenarios can be discussed on plenty of other sites....just not on the Wikipedia article please, that's not what it's for.
Please let me know if I've missed something, or haven't considered other circumstances. Lordstorm ( talk) 06:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all I'm not trying to make this difficult but there still seems to be a lot of ambiguity over what constitutes a live route and what isn't. I've noticed there has been a large cull and cleanup of routes recently, some of there are absolutely correct like proposed routes from the TEM - these are not official in any way, however some routes that have been removed have had live images unveiled on places like GSV, Major Road Projects Victoria [1] or Level Crossing Removal Victoria [2].
Take as an example route A16 Thompson(s) Road/A25 Frankston-Dandenong Road (which has unveiled signage on Major Road Projects Victoria), these have been removed but others like A60 and B980 are still live (A60 has a couple of GSV images but there are a number of new GSV images from July 2021 showing a coverplated ALT1 shield, B980 I can't seem to find any source that it is live?).
I guess I just want to clarify, if a sign has a few unveiled signs but is mostly still signed as the old route, does this mean it is unveiled? If no, routes A60 and A77 should be removed (A77 as the only unveiled A77 sign is on Fitzgerald Rd, Kings Rd/Station Rd is still signed as SR77/SR40). If yes, then a number of routes should probably be reinstated (eg. B29 Blackburn Rd has been unveiled on one of the same signs A60 is unveiled).
It's just that grey area between proposed and live where there are still a few that need to be cleaned up. Zach386x ( talk) 01:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Missing A77 124.188.164.242 ( talk) 06:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey all, does anyone know how to actually create new .svg files for route numbers that don't exist? I think it's time C953 for Bolton St gets added in, as you can see from the link below it's been showing up since Dec 2022 and by now there is at least 6-7 signs showing up on the 1.5km road, including on signs where MR44 has been coverplated on. However I don't want to add it in as adding in the shield for VIC/C953 shows up as an invalid .svg file, would be cool if there was a tutorial to fix this up.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.7331794,145.1371583,3a,16.7y,317.55h,93.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKhpr8RwJiH0PKWen4VZ8Jg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Cheers
Zach386x (
talk)
07:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
B664, which includes the roads Hall Road, Lathams Road and Rutherford Road and stretches from Cranbourne to Seaford via Cranbourne West and Carrum Downs, is missing Zakary2012 ( talk) 07:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The B664 is missing its icon Zakary2012 ( talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there any reason the A440 South Gippsland Highway is missing from the A-routes list? I could try and add it myself, but I don't really know how I'd get the exact length of the road. – numbermaniac 07:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The following alphanumeric routes have been signed, but temporarily coverplated with the old SR shields
Why is every route entry in this page being duplicated? It appears each route entry - for the most part already completed - is being duplicated to indicate route allocation in both directions, which is understandable but completely unnecessary. Before, each entry was completed from beginning to end in one direction, with any alterations of route allocation in the reverse direction clearly noted. Now it appears user User:Thent1234 has decided to unilaterally add in extra details that are not really needed, without consultation. Granted, if permission for such a major upheaval of the page's information was sought and given off-page, then I sincerely apologise. But it is usually customary to ask such on the Talk page of the article being edited, and I do not see such a request here. The same user also appears to have copied content wholesale from another Victoria routes article (the List_of_road_routes_in_Victoria_(numeric) page) quite unnecessarily, as the content was already available there, and the previous wiki-link at the beginning of the article clearly referring to this has now been removed. Replacement text also has a mess of whitespace severely impacting the presentation of information, with far more mis-aligned text and paragraph breaks, further hampering article readability.
It appears the user has altered the Victorian listing of roads simply because they were allowed to do so on NSW road route and QLD route road pages and assumed they would do so on the Victorian page (again, without asking permission first), without considering both the existing listed routes were already correct and complete, and the sheer number of listed Victorian routes as compared to other states: while duplication of non-Victorian routes might make sense due to a far-smaller number of gazetted routes in that state, duplicating nearly 700 existing entries for Victoria in an already fairly-lengthy article makes it far harder to comprehend. Initiative is all well and good, but simply thinking "I did it for other articles, I'll do it to this one" without consultation on an article that many other users besides User:Thent1234 have laboured on for the last few years isn't justification for unilaterally making such edits.
The end result is a confusing, incomplete (yes I understand it's a work in progress, but the description still stands), and nearly-unreadable mess of information, most of which was already available in its previous state. I would politely request a rollback of the article back to its original state, or at least a deletion of the superfluous entries, until a decision can be made.
Aside, the account for User:Thent1234 appears to have been recently banned indefinitely as a sockpuppet for numerous defacements of previous articles.
218.215.97.120 ( talk) 07:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Evad37: It appears that no Project member is watching this article. I was under the impression that all of the Thent changes were to be reversed, and I specifically asked for an exemption for the Queensland list as I had already “fixed” it. Downsize43 ( talk) 02:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Last time I went to Victoria (4 - 2 weeks ago) I saw a bunch of new routes that aren't on here.
Seen photos but not physically been there:
On the North East Link map:
and also found these routes in the Melway Edition 47:
However, I am reluctant to add these routes until we find a photo for all of these, as well as I do not know too much about roads, also not a Victorian resident and these are some that I spotted or seen photos of.
RealLifeLorefan80 ( talk) 23:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
They also found:
and MR77 has been half decommissioned.
RealLifeLorefan80 ( talk) 22:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Also for the photos: A16 - see link above A50 - thanks to Alex Csar for the photo A81 - again, its his photo A93 - here A95 - here A60 - here B716 - here
Thanks to this Aussie Highways group that I found for the photos. hopefully we can start updating these.
RealLifeLorefan80 ( talk) 04:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is naturally going to be a bit difficult, as any system changing from one style of allocations to another will tend to be initially confusing. We can't really rely on Google Maps as they have been known to be incorrect (verification using GSV is good, but that only gives us a new route for a portion of its allocation, not its beginning and end points): we should ultimately rely on VicRoads info, but sadly they aren't as helpful releasing info either.
We want our information to be as correct as it can be at the time we add it: could I politely ask we not add proposed routes into the article until the road project/reallocation has happened and is officially live? Lordstorm ( talk) 02:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Some of Melbourne's route allocations have an altered colour to indicate toll-roads (eg: on Citylink South,
on Citylink West,
on Eastlink). Would it worthwhile adding them back into this article?
Lordstorm (
talk)
06:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, do it. AussieCoinCollector ( talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 09:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Done, used Road Routes of Queensland as a template; thankfully Victoria only has three toll roads in total. Lordstorm ( talk) 11:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I notice that the West Gate Tunnel has been added to the table as M10, but are we actually sure about that one? We already have an A10, which is the Princes Highway in Geelong. I somewhat doubt they would use the same number for two different roads like this. Do we have a source on that road being assigned M10? – numbermaniac 01:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Why have a whole load of unverified routes been added? Most of these appear to be proposed routes to eventually replace existing State Routes, but the only source for most of these is a Groups thread, hardly a reliable or trustworthy source. I thought the agreement was to only add in routes once they had been actually seen in the wild (ie: not cover-plated) or had been listed from an official government source (ie: SRNS), as already previously stated here? Some are also from projects that are currently under construction, and so haven't had the chance to be allocated yet? Shouldn't these be removed until they have been visually verified, officially sourced, or the project is completed? 218.215.97.120 ( talk) 14:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
With a lot of recent unverified edits on this page recently, we need to restate acceptable guidelines as to what to add.
As mentioned here earlier, the Melbourne system is currently in a state of flux, changing from one allocation system to another, and this will to some initial confusion. However, we want our information to be as correct as it can be at the time we add it: this means information should have a reliable source. Not a source mentioned somewhere off another site: sources must be listed here.
Sources must be official: these are route routes allocated to Victorian roads, so in this case, a Victorian government or VicRoads source are ultimately the only acceptable sources. This does not include, however, VicRoads Traffic Engineering Manuals (TEMs): while some of their allocations used in these documents have later turned out to be correct, many others have not; this information is speculative at best and is usually used only as examples. The only real online source we currently have is the Route Numbering Scheme (SRNS). Sadly, it doesn't seem to he updated regularly, so a work-around for that is simply to get visual confirmation: a detailed photo (or capture on Google Street View) of the route allocation is acceptable. Mapping tools (like OpenStreetMap) are not reliable sources, because anyone can edit them: this includes Google Maps, which may use official details but does get things wrong, and is updated by a corporation, so their priorities aren't the same. Online groups (like discussion boards, Google Groups, roads forums) are not reliable sources, for obvious reasons.
Also, it has been previously established that no proposed routes are to be listed until the change has actually gone live and the new route has been sign-posted, because it can be changed or even cancelled (it is "proposed" after all), and can be incredibly confusing if it ends up used elsewhere; this includes projects under construction (and their documents) using future allocations, for similar reasons: the route is only live once the road has been officially opened. Some routes have been converted but remain coverplated: these really aren't live either until the new signage is displayed and cover-plating is removed.
Lastly, regarding the edits themselves: edits are far less likely to be overwritten or reverted if users sign in and use edit summaries! Anonymous edits are automatically suspect (and Wikipedia already heavily discourages this) and edit summaries make version control easier....and is just being nice, people!
Trivial, unverified, unsourced, anonymous edits will be reverted. We are trying to be factual: discussion, conjecture, and "what-if" scenarios can be discussed on plenty of other sites....just not on the Wikipedia article please, that's not what it's for.
Please let me know if I've missed something, or haven't considered other circumstances. Lordstorm ( talk) 06:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all I'm not trying to make this difficult but there still seems to be a lot of ambiguity over what constitutes a live route and what isn't. I've noticed there has been a large cull and cleanup of routes recently, some of there are absolutely correct like proposed routes from the TEM - these are not official in any way, however some routes that have been removed have had live images unveiled on places like GSV, Major Road Projects Victoria [1] or Level Crossing Removal Victoria [2].
Take as an example route A16 Thompson(s) Road/A25 Frankston-Dandenong Road (which has unveiled signage on Major Road Projects Victoria), these have been removed but others like A60 and B980 are still live (A60 has a couple of GSV images but there are a number of new GSV images from July 2021 showing a coverplated ALT1 shield, B980 I can't seem to find any source that it is live?).
I guess I just want to clarify, if a sign has a few unveiled signs but is mostly still signed as the old route, does this mean it is unveiled? If no, routes A60 and A77 should be removed (A77 as the only unveiled A77 sign is on Fitzgerald Rd, Kings Rd/Station Rd is still signed as SR77/SR40). If yes, then a number of routes should probably be reinstated (eg. B29 Blackburn Rd has been unveiled on one of the same signs A60 is unveiled).
It's just that grey area between proposed and live where there are still a few that need to be cleaned up. Zach386x ( talk) 01:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Missing A77 124.188.164.242 ( talk) 06:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey all, does anyone know how to actually create new .svg files for route numbers that don't exist? I think it's time C953 for Bolton St gets added in, as you can see from the link below it's been showing up since Dec 2022 and by now there is at least 6-7 signs showing up on the 1.5km road, including on signs where MR44 has been coverplated on. However I don't want to add it in as adding in the shield for VIC/C953 shows up as an invalid .svg file, would be cool if there was a tutorial to fix this up.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.7331794,145.1371583,3a,16.7y,317.55h,93.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKhpr8RwJiH0PKWen4VZ8Jg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Cheers
Zach386x (
talk)
07:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
B664, which includes the roads Hall Road, Lathams Road and Rutherford Road and stretches from Cranbourne to Seaford via Cranbourne West and Carrum Downs, is missing Zakary2012 ( talk) 07:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The B664 is missing its icon Zakary2012 ( talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)