Talk:List of road routes in Victoria

A440 missing?

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)

A25 and A60

The following alphanumeric routes have been signed, but temporarily coverplated with the old SR shields

• A25 - Frankston-Dandenong Road (observed coverplated signage at Thompson Road x Frankston-Dandenong Rd)
• A60 - Princes Highway (observed coverplated signage at Blackburn Rd x Princes Hwy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.218.52 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent entry duplication and additional duplicated info

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)

 Reverted. Yes IP and Downsize43, generally such edits should be undone, and particularly if they are unhelpful. Quite apart for the sock aspect, bold edits without consensus can also be reverted as part of WP:BRD - Evad37 [talk] 03:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of routes missing

Hi

Last time I went to Victoria (4 - 2 weeks ago) I saw a bunch of new routes that aren't on here.

• - Thompsons Road additional photo here
• - Nepean Highway
• - Plenty Road
• - Belgrave-Hallam Road (only saw it on the Monash Freeway)

Seen photos but not physically been there:

• - O'Hearns Road
• - Mount Alexander Road
• - Leakes Road
• - Foundation Road
• (A77 - needs a shield) - Fitzgerald Road and Ashmore Avenue, continuation of B77

On the North East Link map:

• - Greensborough Bypass (once NE link completed)
• - Elgar Road (appeared in the newer MelWay which I haven't seen)

and also found these routes in the Melway Edition 47:

• - Sayers Rd/Old Geelong Rd (Fitzgerald Rd to Derrimut Rd)
• - Leakes Rd (Fitzgerald Rd to Derrimut Rd)
• - Palmers Rd/Dunnings Rd ( Western Freeway to Point Cook Rd) (also see photo here
• - Forsyth Rd (Old Geelong Rd to Leakes Rd)
• - Dohertys Rd (Grieve Pde to Derrimut Rd)
• - Pound Rd (Shrives Rd to Narre-Warren Cranbourne Rd)

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)

• I think there's a big change happening overall to the network, but VicRoads doesn't seem to have published anything about it last time I checked. A lot of State Routes seem to be getting replaced with A or B numbers under this new system. Since you mentioned B668, a sign confirming that particular route number is visible here on Google Maps Street View if anyone wants confirmation. I believe this new route number also extends to Greaves Road, as I vaguely remember seeing a B668 sign at the new roundabout at the intersection of Greaves Rd and Berwick Springs Promenade - but I don't have a picture of that one. – numbermaniac 08:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

All of the bottom ones were published in the Melway along with B716 and B975 on Edition 48. To me, GSV aint that reliable as OSM. But in this case, we'll have to use it. I have family in Vic, and they saw B716 as well so that's also a confirmed. It's also there on GSV.

They also found:

• - Blackburn Road.
• - Nepean Highway until

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 have been officially announced on the Melways AussieCoinCollector (talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 09:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I found a work-around for this system, I hope this is agreeable? There is a canonical source from the state government regarding road routes: the Route Numbering Scheme (SRNS), which is updated fairly regularly. So my filters for adding in new routes are as follows:
1) Have signs been erected clearly indicating the new route (GSV or photos preferably)? If so, then:
2) Is it listed in the SRNS?
If "yes" to both, add it in, with the SRNS data defining the route details (road allocation, length, etc).
If "no" to either of them, then don't add it in yet (as leads to too much confusion).

This will change, naturally - as new signs go up and new data is officially added to SRNS - but this should at least keep the confusion factor down for now. I've added in a few of the above missing routes as they fit these conditions, and will be keeping an eye on new allocations and SRNS updates.
Lordstorm (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of toll-road routes?

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)

M10 for West Gate Tunnel?

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)

I thought West Gate Tunnel was going to be allocated M4 when it opened.....? Removing for above reasons as no source stated; while it's been marked on the West Gate Tunnel page, again there is no source. 218.215.97.120 (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed routes

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)

Yes, we have previously established no proposed routes 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); this also includes projects under construction (as the route is only live once the road is actually opened to traffic). Some routes have been converted but remain coverplated: these technically aren't live either until the new signage is displayed and cover-plating is removed. And no, a Google Groups is not a reliable source. I'd better state these guidelines more clearly, as it appears recent updates have not followed these. Lordstorm (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Guidlines to adding/editing road routes

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)

Still ambiguity on signed/unsigned routes

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 or Level Crossing Removal Victoria.

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)

Heya,

No problems, I freely admit it's a bit of a tight-rope act trying to figure what should be included or not. To begin with, SRNS trumps all, as it's the only official government source we have, but what about all those additional routes it doesn't list that are already up and "live?" The reason why the routes you mentioned that have been used on signs shown in the MRPV and the LXRA sites (A16/A25....along with many others) haven't been included is because later inspection showed they had been coverplated, if not immediately then quickly afterwards, which is quite annoying! Why promote them on construction websites if you're not going to use them on the site you've just built? Also, due to the irregular way these are updated, they only indicate a portion of the new route the number is used on.....if they don't replace the entire route with the new allocation, how are we supposed to know where it starts and ends? GSV is used as a verification tool (that's how B716 was confirmed to exist initially) but it's not perfect either. I personally have seen the B980 allocation now live under the MP freeway extension, but it was too dark to take a photo at the time, will try again this weekend.

With A60 it was more difficult: it appeared there were more visible signs openly showing A60 than on other routes. I hadn't noticed Alt1 coverplates to be honest, but I could have easily missed them, considering moving around Melbourne isn't as easy as it used to be. There was a similar process for A77, but I might have been too presumptuous. I could restore the citation-needed tag, or it could be removed entirely, only it may be immediately restored by more anonymous editors..... then again that's why I removed the A50 route, only one or two signs sighted doesn't warrant listing it as a complete route. And that might have answered your remaining question: a sign here or there doesn't make it an official route (otherwise none of us would have any idea what new routes would go where!), I usually go by the majority rule: if the majority of the new route markers outnumber the old ones, then list it.

Ultimately, if you can justify your edit (something there's very little of these days), then go for it: this isn't a dictatorship; the fact you've used the Talk page to ask questions means your input is more likely to be considered! I try the best I can to keep this article up-to-date and correct at the time of reference, but I don't always get it right, and Wikipedia thrives on all our input.....it just needs to be factual! Lordstorm (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

Yep that makes sense, shame the SRNS hasn't been updated recently, as even that appears to be out of date, the last edit was Feb 2021 apparently (By that time routes such as A81, A93 and B716 had been clearly marked, and it even shows Roads such as C726 ending in Yallambie, despite ending in Kangaroo Ground!), but it is the only official source we currently have. I wish they would just release the roadmap so we can get some clarity! Just from a general observation, it appears routes that had a previous State Route number are being coverplated such as A16, A25 and A50, whilst new routes are being left unveiled such as B716 and B675 (a notable outlier is Plenty Road, in which SR27 has clearly been replaced by A51, this is evident on both SRNS and published images/GSV between Bundoora and Mernda - as to why I have no idea!). I do agree with the majority idea, they are only published here when say 50% or more of signs are unveiled. This would be similar to how Tullamarine Fwy/CityLink changed from SR43 to M2 - M2 signs started appearing around 2013, but it wasn't until 2018 when the major upgrades replaced a large bulk of signage with M2. Despite some signs still showing SR43 as of today, Wikipedia is showing it as M2 since 2018, which is when most of the signs were replaced. There are probably a number of issues with this approach, but it seems the best we have got at the moment.

I agree A60 does appear more visibly signed than other routes, the coverplated ALT1 shield has appeared on upgraded sections of the Monash Freeway. I was also just thinking the reason why it should be reverted potentially is it is still showing ALT1 on SRNS, a large number of ALT1 signs remain, as well as we don't know the final route of A60 (eg. Will it extend up Bulla Rd to M2? Will parts of C101 be replaced by A60?). Again though, there are increasingly quite a few signs that have not been coverplated so A60 is a really tricky one (again... if only the government would release some more info!) Zach386x (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

One A60 sign I've seen that appears to remain without a coverplate is this one on Cheltenham Rd near the rail bridge. Interesting how there are coverplates for the SR9 and SR10 signs, but not for A60.

Unrelated, but I noticed you mentioned in one of your edit summaries that it would be useful if the AUshield template had the A77 shield. I don't know much about the template, but I looked at it, and it looks like it expects an SVG file for the shield (as examples, see the SVG files used for the M1 shield and the C101 shield). The A77 image is a PNG, which is why the template won't show it. I suppose someone would have to make an A77 SVG if there isn't already one somewhere. – numbermaniac 07:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Freshly made today. –Fredddie™ 06:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Missing A77

Missing A77 124.188.164.242 (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

See the discussions above - A77 was removed because it's being covered up by SR40 or SR77 on all new signs for now. It'll be added to the table whenever the route is properly unveiled. – numbermaniac 04:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Creating new route number .svg files

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)

For now I think you can go ahead and add C953 into the table, and just leave it without a shield for the time being - it can always be added later. I think this is what we did when other routes were added to the table, such as C989 and C996. – numbermaniac 03:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have added the missing route shields. Please feel free to message me when new ones are needed. AUroadgeek7 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

B664

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)

Good catch -- I've seen it in a few places too. I have added that one now. – numbermaniac 10:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

B664's Icon

The B664 is missing its icon Zakary2012 (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

New routes in Croydon

Am going to add these here rather than put them on the page. Will leave it for one of you with some more expertise. Anyway I was in my local area on Sunday and saw new signs near Croydon station, the roundabout at Kent Ave/Wicklow Ave/Croydon Rd has been removed and replaced with an intersection.

B25 has been signed on Wicklow Ave and Croydon Rd. B44 has been signed on Kent Ave. Or was it A44? I can't recall. See why this isn't official 😀 Definitely got my attention as the TEM says A44 is the widest of the metropolitan SRNS routes it needs to accommodate.

I used to be on the AussieHighways group but dropped off... you might have seen me as B.J. or Omegaville. Is there anywhere else roadgeeks congregate online? I'm not a fan of SRNS but I accept it's coming, and to be honest I'd rather see it rolled out entirely and the Metropolitan Route system phased out. (And why does Wikipedia call the Metropolitan Routes "numeric routes"?) If we're going to have shiny new routes, let's see them in its entirety. Darn that government funding! 220.253.127.86 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)