Talk:Forrest Highway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Forrest Highway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2015.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 6, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
March 20, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted
March 21, 2015 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Australia / Western Australia (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Forrest Highway is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Australian Roads (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics Western Australia  
Note icon
This article has a KML file.

All other intersections with the freeway are at-grade[edit]

Route description says:

Forrest Highway ..., continuing south from Kwinana Freeway at a folded diamond interchange with Pinjarra Road. All other intersections with the freeway are at-grade,...

Should this be:

All other intersections with the freeway highway are at-grade,...

Mitch Ames (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, fixed now - Evad37 [talk] 12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Daily traffic figures[edit]

The last paragraph of Route description appears to mix per-direction figures ("5010 vehicles northbound") with totals ("a total of 14,000 vehicles per day"). Unless the figures in each direction are particularly significant (and they don't appear to be), I suggest that it would be better to consistently report the total figures, eg:

In April 2011, the average daily weekday traffic volume north of Old Bunbury Road was 10,660 vehicles. This figure was up from 9,680 when the highway first opened in 2009.[1] This had increased to 14,000 vehicles per day in 2012,[2] and 17,000 by 2014.[3]

  1. ^ Simon O'Brien, Minister for Finance (5 April 2011).$FILE/C38%20S1%2020110405%20p2253c-2253c.pdf |chapter-url= missing title (help) (PDF). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Western Australia: Legislative Council. p. 2253. Archived from the original on 9 November 2013. 
  2. ^ Paikos, Ashleigh (Semester 1, 2012). "New Freeway Speed Trial". 3rd Degree (1 ed.). Edith Cowan University. 13. Archived from the original on 6 June 2014. Retrieved 6 June 2014.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Burgess, Jill (22 January 2014). "Cowper leads push". Mandurah Coastal Times. Archived from the original on 6 June 2014. Retrieved 6 June 2014. 

(Assuming consensus that there is no traffic other than northbound and southbound, WP:CALC allows us to add the per-direction figures.)

Furthermore, there may be merit in re-ordering the presentation of the figures, so that they are in chronological order:

When the highway was first opened in 2009, the average daily weekday traffic volume north of Old Bunbury Road was 9,680. By April 2011, it had increased to 10,660 vehicles.[1] In 2012 up to 14,000 vehicles per day used the highway,[2] and 17,000 by 2014.[3]

  1. ^ Simon O'Brien, Minister for Finance (5 April 2011).$FILE/C38%20S1%2020110405%20p2253c-2253c.pdf |chapter-url= missing title (help) (PDF). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Western Australia: Legislative Council. p. 2253. Archived from the original on 9 November 2013. 
  2. ^ Paikos, Ashleigh (Semester 1, 2012). "New Freeway Speed Trial". 3rd Degree (1 ed.). Edith Cowan University. 13. Archived from the original on 6 June 2014. Retrieved 6 June 2014.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Burgess, Jill (22 January 2014). "Cowper leads push". Mandurah Coastal Times. Archived from the original on 6 June 2014. Retrieved 6 June 2014. 

Mitch Ames (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done both the reordering and changing to totals - Evad37 [talk] 14:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dash in "Perth–Bunbury Highway" etc[edit]

The sources are not consistent in their use of of a hypen/dash in "Perth–Bunbury Highway", "New Perth–Bunbury Highway", "Perth–Bunbury Highway Peel deviation", or variants thereof, but perhaps our article should try to be. Because of the lack of consistency in the sources, it's not obvious to me which is "correct", but the current inconsistency does strike me as being "wrong". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Consistency would be good. Given the variations in the sources, we should probably look to our own WP:MOS for guidance. - Evad37 [talk]

Extension to the Murray River[edit]


The History section asserts that:

The project consisted of a 32-kilometre (20 mi) freeway-standard extension to Pinjarra Road and the Murray River at South Yunderup, ...

I doubt they were really catering for amphibious vehicles - presumably there's a copy/paste error in that sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, not going to spot one of these. "Pinjarra Road and the Murray River" is the end point of the freeway-standard extension, perhaps there should be a comma after "extension", and/or "to" should be changed to "up to"? - Evad37 [talk] 12:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"... freeway-standard extension as far as Pinjarra Road and the Murray River ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "and the Murray River" is necessary, or even accurate here. Is the stretch of road between Pinjarra Road and the river (100m measured from the bridge on Google maps, or 350m according to Major intersections table) freeway-standard or highway standard? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, according to ref 14, it is freeway-standard until South Yunderup Road, South Yunderup. - Evad37 [talk] 01:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Major intersections table[edit]

Some comments/suggestions on the Major intersections table:

The highway crosses the Murray River, but I would not call that a "major intersection" in this context. I suggest that row should be removed.

The staggered T junction intersections have a range of distance in the km/Mile columns. Perhaps it's technically accurate because there are two separate T intersections, but in that case each T junction should be a separate row in the table. Alternatively, from a practical viewpoint, it might be better to list a single distance in each column of the existing rows, taking the midpoint between the two T junctions. To avoid undue precision it may be appropriate to switch to one decimal place instead of two - for the whole table, per MOS:DECIMAL (do we really need two decimal places?).

The km and Mile column headings are not consistent. I realise that it is a template {{AUSinttop}} following more global rules - see WT:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Mile or km.

I think the conversion factors at the bottom should be 1 mi = ... etc, not 1.000 mi = ...
Again, a template problem. Details at Template_talk:Jctbtm#Correction needed urgently. (Not that it's urgent, but I'm continuing/re-opening a discussion in an existing section.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Per MOS:RJL, "Include ... Toll barriers, major water bodies, major bridges and tunnels"
Evad37 — continues after insertion below
I'll take this up at WT:RJL. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
See WT:RJL#Inclusion of major water bodies. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I had combined the staggered T junctions to avoid some repetition (and per MOS:RJL "If there are two exits in an interchange, one for each direction of the crossing road, they should generally be combined into one row, unless this would complicate matters"), but splitting into two rows wouldn't be a big deal. It would certainly be a better option than manipulating the source data to generate a value for a single point, when there are in fact two points. There is also no need to reduce accuracy from the source data, which is to the nearest 10m. This is level of precision recommended for coordinates for points in a city (WP:OPCOORD), and so seems appropriate in this context – especially since the data is in a table, and not disrupting the flow of prose.
  • Changes to the templates will require consensus to be reached elsewhere. - Evad37 [talk] 13:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Your input on the appropriate talk pages (as mentioned in my initial post) would be appreciated. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Bridge name[edit]

continued from WT:RJL#Inclusion of major water bodies

@Mitch Ames: Ref 1: → tick "Structure" (in map contents on the left). Search (top left) → Search all → type in "1612" → gives result "Structure (1): Murray River & Pinjarra Road". Click on "Murray River & Pinjarra Road" to expand the details, which includes "Crossing Name: Murray River & Pinjarra Road". So that's what Main Roads says the crossing name is. If you want to look at some others, 1168→Redcliffe Bridge, 0914 and 0932 → the Causeway (Perth end and Vic. Park end), and 0608→Clackline Bridge. - Evad37 [talk] 02:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to link directly to that, eg as a ref - I suspect not. Do we have a standard method for citing specific things in that system, possibly by item number? It's been useful a couple of times now, and it would be nice to have a template for consistent citation. Even if the text appearing in the reflist listed only the identifying details eg structure number, it could also include a link to the template docs that gave instructions (like yours above) to the reader as to how to find that specific information.
According to Main Roads the "Crossing Name" is "Murray River & Pinjarra Road", not "Murray River & Pinjarra Road bridge". If the "crossing" is the bridge – which seems reasonable given that "Murray River & Pinjarra Road" is an item under "Structure(1)" – then the RJL table ought not to include the word "bridge". (If the "crossing" is not the bridge (ie the bridge is the structure, "crossing" is an abstract noun), then "Murray River & Pinjarra Road bridge" is a description, not the actual name of the bridge.)
Whether or not "Murray River & Pinjarra Road [bridge]" is the name (or description) of the bridge according to Main Roads, there is probably merit in (also) listing the common name of the bridge which, presumably, is Windich Bridge, as shown on the sign on the bridge, visible at 0:55 in File:Forrest Highway southbound from Pinjarra Road.ogv and (more clearly) in Google Maps' Street View. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there is a standard CS1 citation method for such situations (interactive websites without direct links or obvious section/works titles), the issue hasn't been raised till now.
  • The way the form is set out, with the crossing name repeated at the top / listed in the search results, it looks like that field was probably intended to be for the name of the structure... but I can't see anything conclusive one way or the other.
  • I've switched the name, since I managed to find a Department of Transport map which I can cite, and it is definitely the common name, which is usually preferred - Evad37 [talk] 13:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thompson Road, Bunbury[edit]

Thompson Road, the north-west link to Willinge Drive, is not shown on any map I can find. Downsize43 (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Go here or here and zoom in really far so the road name comes up - Evad37 [talk] 03:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Shows as Thomson Road (no p) in your second ref. Gave up on the first. Perhaps a ref in the RJL (with the correct spelling for the road) would be appropriate. Downsize43 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, that p must have been a typo - Evad37 [talk] 13:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, except that a search on your ref fails to find Thomson Road. Perhaps try the other ref ( Downsize43 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You can get there in the Main Roads ref either by searching, or by zooming in.
  • Search instructions: (1) Click the drop down arrow next to the Search bar on the left to open the search pane. (2) Click "Search all" to open a search dialogue. (3) Type in "Thomson Rd" (without quotes) and click "Find". (4) Right click on "THOMSON RD, VITTORIA", the click on "Zoom to". You will be zoomed into it's location, with the road highlighted in cyan that turns red when you mouse over.
  • Zoom instructions: (1) Open the website, wait for map to load. (2) Zoom into towards Bunbury. (3) Zoom in further, slightly north-east of Eelup Rty. (4) Keep zooming in on that connection to Willinge Drive until "Thomson Rd" comes up.
There you go, the reference verifies Thomson Road - Evad37 [talk] 00:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

State Route 10[edit]

If Google maps are to be believed, Robertson Drive (south from Eelup Roundabout) is not part of State Route 10 until it ceases to be part of National Route 1 further south. Downsize43 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Google maps often gets these things a little bit wrong. Have a look at the signs approaching the roundabout in their Streetview: [1], [2] (less clear, but still there) - Evad37 [talk] 03:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
To me those signs say "Go in this direction for Donnybrook or Busselton. Look out for further signs to your preferred destination somewhere down the road. By the way, it will probably be route 1 or route 10. When you find out which it is, continue to follow that number if you have trouble reading the destination name, or for any other reason that might occur." IMHO, in no way do these signs indicate the start of route 10.Downsize43 (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Route numbers on a sign not meaning that route applies in the direction indicated seems like quite... odd. Unless it is qualified by "To (route)" or "(Location) via (route)", which isn't the case here. There's plenty of precedent for signs using such conventions, eg [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. And side-by-side route numbers on the big green signs is the convention for concurrent routes, eg NR1 + SR7 on green sign = both SR7 and NR1, NR1 + SR6 = both NR1 and SR6, NH94 + NR1 = both NH94 and NR1, NR1 + SR51 = both NR1 and SR51, NH95 + NR1 = both NH95 and NR1.
So where does this leave us? Either the route numbers on the sign mean what they usually mean, or whoever designed the signs put "(1) (10)" instead of "(1) TO (10)" or "(1), Donnybrook, Busselton VIA (10)". Perhaps some further investigation is warranted. - Evad37 [talk] 14:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point re the TO route number on signs = don't recall seeing one in the eastern states, but they may well exist. I did find one example in the Qld ref, which is a carbon copy of the NSW ref. It shows the TO on a chevron-ended sign pointing to a numbered highway (and a location name) via an un-numbered street.Downsize43 (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Forrest Highway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)