Talk:List of road routes in Victoria

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

• 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)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

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)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

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)

The SRNS link now points to a 404 error, you may need to update. ~2025-34720-06 (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2025 (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)

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)

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)

Summarize Fact Check

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)