Talk:Adelaide-Crafers Highway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Adelaide-Crafers 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Highways, a project which is dedicated to providing information about highways around the world. 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. |
[edit] Naming
Is there a reason it's called a highway, but is in fact a freeway? Or am I confused? Thedangerouskitchen 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Im with you. that section of road used to be the adelaide-crafers hwy, but is now part of the freeway...AS you enter the road, about 200m from the intersection of glen osmond road, portrush road and cross road, there are all the usual freeway signs. The only difference from the rest of the freeway is the 100km/h...TheJosh 09:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is not part of the freeway, merely the road flowing onto it; the freeway has always begun at Crafers. The South Eastern Freeway originally connected to Mount Barker Road (the old route to the freeway, which the A-C Hwy travels along for a brief period near the city end—before the Devil's Elbow), was going to connect to the Hills Freeway as part of the MATS plan, and then then connected to the A-C Hwy when it replaced Mount Barker Road. The A-C Hwy is, however, a 'freeway-grade' road (equivalent to one). michael talk 09:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Devil's Elbow would make for an interesting article. I remember passing at least two horror crashes at that dreadful passing, having to call emergency services for one. --cj | talk 08:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is not part of the freeway, merely the road flowing onto it; the freeway has always begun at Crafers. The South Eastern Freeway originally connected to Mount Barker Road (the old route to the freeway, which the A-C Hwy travels along for a brief period near the city end—before the Devil's Elbow), was going to connect to the Hills Freeway as part of the MATS plan, and then then connected to the A-C Hwy when it replaced Mount Barker Road. The A-C Hwy is, however, a 'freeway-grade' road (equivalent to one). michael talk 09:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Im with you. that section of road used to be the adelaide-crafers hwy, but is now part of the freeway...AS you enter the road, about 200m from the intersection of glen osmond road, portrush road and cross road, there are all the usual freeway signs. The only difference from the rest of the freeway is the 100km/h...TheJosh 09:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
These two pages describe the same object, just different names. I have proposed for merger, but don't know how to go about it any further ROxBo 22:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also, don't know how to progress with this merge but I agree with the proposal. As I understand it, the Adelaide-Crafers Highway was the road that led from the toll gate to Crafers via Eagle on the Hill. Since the construction of the Heysen Tunnels, the Southeastern Freeway has extended all the way to the toll gate. I support a merge with South Eastern Freeway as the article name.--Yeti Hunter 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- They do not describe the same thing and if you bothered to read the articles you would not say something so stupid. Adelaide-Crafers Highway: Glen Osmond-Crafers, South Eastern Freeway: Crafers-Murray Bridge. Michael talk 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, not only do the articles state this, but I explain it in the discussion above this one! Lunacy. Michael talk 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Steady on. I'm well aware of what the article states, but the article lacks sources, so I sought to clarify and did a bit of research. Google Earth agrees with you, as does part of the Transport SA site [1], but elsewhere there are conflicting sources, such as [2] (Transport SA ring route map). Strictly speaking, it does appear that I am mistaken and they are officially two separate roads, and yet most people would assume that the SE freeway starts at the toll gate, since it is for all intents and purposes a continuous road. I still believe a merge is appropriate, with Adelaide-Crafers Highway as a subcategory.--Yeti Hunter 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, not only do the articles state this, but I explain it in the discussion above this one! Lunacy. Michael talk 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- They do not describe the same thing and if you bothered to read the articles you would not say something so stupid. Adelaide-Crafers Highway: Glen Osmond-Crafers, South Eastern Freeway: Crafers-Murray Bridge. Michael talk 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for pushing the point a little but I feel you're being something of a stickler for a technicality. What, for example, would be the problem with merging the article to Southeastern Freeway and adding a section about the Adelaide Crafers Hwy, including a note that they are technically two different roads? In common usage, people would always call it the SE freeway, not the AC Hwy. There's a tag on the page asking me to weigh into this issue - please don't snap at people who choose to participate.--Yeti Hunter 15:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Off to the library I go. Michael talk 03:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the factual accuracy of what you say, all I am saying is that it seems silly to have two articles for what is, for all intents and purposes, the same road.--Yeti Hunter 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. Two pages cotain very similar data reflecting the concept of the road as a single entity - I think merging the two articles with 2 subheadings to reflect the technical division on the new page would be the best solution. Michael your comments are rather hostile, I would recommend you check outWikipedia:Civility. ROxBo 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with a merge. I always thought that it _used_ to be the adelaide-crafers highway, but now its all freeway. Its even full freeway grade - one of the key differences between highway and freeway is limited intersections (highways can have roads onto them, freeways need exits) also, the sign saying 'START FREEWAY' just after the toll gate seems rather obvious...
Also, even if they were actually 2 different entities, they should be listed on one article, with a subheading, because of confusion reasons. --58.108.29.2 12:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do not attempt another merge. Two different and entirely separate roads with two different and entirely separate characteristics and histories. You have seen all the evidence, ignored all the evidence, and seem to want to go on hearsay. It's foolish. Michael talk 14:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to go technical, then neither name is correct, and they are both the same road - The Princes Highway between Glen Osmond and Tailem Bend. http://www.ozroads.com.au/SA/New/1/PrincesM/princesM.htm. I can also cite numerous reliable sources referring to the "Adelaide Crafers Highway" as "South Eastern Freeway" to demonstrate that this is the commonly accepted name: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1280230.htm, http://www.sacentral.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=57&area=2&c=41416, http://www.hotkey.net.au/~krool/photos/sa/sefreeway.html, http://www.transportsa.com.au/transport_network/projects/better_roads/map.asp. Like I have said all along, I do not dispute the factual accuracy of what you say. I merely believe that since they are for all intents and purposes the same road, they should be in the same article - with separate headings to reflect their completely separate histories. I've respected you as an editor for as long as I've been contributing, and I must say I'm surprised at how hostile and defensive you are being on this issue. --Yeti Hunter 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC) (hostile and defensive???)
- Just let me run around these wild plains, doing as I please, attending to the other animals that need my attention by way of my mouth. I honestly need to open that letter from the Burnside Library, discover how many books are overdue and how much I owe, stumble over there on the mist of petrol left in the tank of my car, pay my fines, borrow some Transport SA books, and, finally, sit down and write these articles up to standard, fully referenced, and do away with popular misconceptions in the names of technicality and reason. Michael talk 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- You amuse me. Ok, let me change tack. Why should "technicality and reason" trump simplicity and real-world use? Wikipedia articles should be optimised for a general audience over specialists.--Yeti Hunter 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe that we should optimise all articles for a general audience (i.e. not overload them with uppity intellectual terms that even most intellectuals can't stand). But this should not be at the expense of accuracy. It is inaccurate to call the SE Freeway and A-C Highway the same road unless you're referring to the Princes Highway, which is something else altogether.
- You amuse me. Ok, let me change tack. Why should "technicality and reason" trump simplicity and real-world use? Wikipedia articles should be optimised for a general audience over specialists.--Yeti Hunter 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just let me run around these wild plains, doing as I please, attending to the other animals that need my attention by way of my mouth. I honestly need to open that letter from the Burnside Library, discover how many books are overdue and how much I owe, stumble over there on the mist of petrol left in the tank of my car, pay my fines, borrow some Transport SA books, and, finally, sit down and write these articles up to standard, fully referenced, and do away with popular misconceptions in the names of technicality and reason. Michael talk 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to go technical, then neither name is correct, and they are both the same road - The Princes Highway between Glen Osmond and Tailem Bend. http://www.ozroads.com.au/SA/New/1/PrincesM/princesM.htm. I can also cite numerous reliable sources referring to the "Adelaide Crafers Highway" as "South Eastern Freeway" to demonstrate that this is the commonly accepted name: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1280230.htm, http://www.sacentral.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=57&area=2&c=41416, http://www.hotkey.net.au/~krool/photos/sa/sefreeway.html, http://www.transportsa.com.au/transport_network/projects/better_roads/map.asp. Like I have said all along, I do not dispute the factual accuracy of what you say. I merely believe that since they are for all intents and purposes the same road, they should be in the same article - with separate headings to reflect their completely separate histories. I've respected you as an editor for as long as I've been contributing, and I must say I'm surprised at how hostile and defensive you are being on this issue. --Yeti Hunter 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC) (hostile and defensive???)
-
-
-
-
- By merging them all you're doing (essentially) is giving into a popular inaccuracy, rather than taking the oppourtunity to use Wikipedia to correct this little anomaly (and, subsequently, shine light into the minds of poor South Australians who are so confused over this)! It's well past my bedtime, but I'll be up at midday tomorrow to check your reply. Michael talk 15:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- It was past my bedtime too! SE Fwy is the generally accepted name for both roads - though neither name is technically correct if you believe the Ozroads reference. It is officially all the same - a section of Princes Highway. Apparently. At any rate, your position and mine have been well voiced and I think if this debate is to progress any further we should await the input of other editors. But please post your counter-refs when you have them. Cheers, --Yeti Hunter 07:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't much care if they're in the same article or not. My understanding is that:
- Adelaide-Crafers Highway is the new road from Glen Osmond through the Tunnels.
- Mount Barker Road is the old road from what's left of the Devil's Elbow (previously from Glen Osmond) through Eagle on the Hill to near Crafers (and also Aldgate through Bridgewater and Hahndorf to Mt Barker).
- South Eastern Freeway is the 4-lane road from Crafers to Swanport near Murray Bridge
- M1 designates the A-C Hwy and the SE Fwy
- Princes Highway (amongst other places) is the old road from Littlehampton through Nairne, Kanmantoo and Monarto to Murray Bridge
- The article(s) should clearly articulate whichever of these are relevant. --Scott Davis Talk 13:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't much care if they're in the same article or not. My understanding is that:
- It was past my bedtime too! SE Fwy is the generally accepted name for both roads - though neither name is technically correct if you believe the Ozroads reference. It is officially all the same - a section of Princes Highway. Apparently. At any rate, your position and mine have been well voiced and I think if this debate is to progress any further we should await the input of other editors. But please post your counter-refs when you have them. Cheers, --Yeti Hunter 07:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- By merging them all you're doing (essentially) is giving into a popular inaccuracy, rather than taking the oppourtunity to use Wikipedia to correct this little anomaly (and, subsequently, shine light into the minds of poor South Australians who are so confused over this)! It's well past my bedtime, but I'll be up at midday tomorrow to check your reply. Michael talk 15:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- So by my count there are 2 votes for merge, 1 against and one ambivalnet. Although I still believe this is best served by a single article with sub-headings the results of this merge proposal are not exactly clearcut. Any final comments anyone? ROxBo 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm also against the merge. I haven't said much about it so far because I largely agree with what Michael said, but I do not believe that it would be necessary or particularly helpful. Rebecca 09:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy so votes don't count. Most contributors seem to consider the road from the toll gate to the swanport bridge either the same road or very similar roads which need to be mentioned in eachother's articles (if they each have their own article). Some even include Mt Barker Rd (Eagle on the hill) in this. In the interests of simplicity and readability, I think this points to having a single article. Yeti Hunter 10:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Other people, however, do not agree with you. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but decisions are made by consensus, not on the basis of who can shout the loudest. Rebecca 10:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, discussions in the medium of text. Who's shouting? ("do not attempt another merge") We're discussing, aren't we? I favour one article on the basis of simplicity, common understanding and ease of using this encyclopaedia. Others favour two articles on the basis of strict accuracy of nomenclature. Both are valid arguments and it's not surprising consensus is difficult to achieve.--Yeti Hunter 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Other people, however, do not agree with you. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but decisions are made by consensus, not on the basis of who can shout the loudest. Rebecca 10:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy so votes don't count. Most contributors seem to consider the road from the toll gate to the swanport bridge either the same road or very similar roads which need to be mentioned in eachother's articles (if they each have their own article). Some even include Mt Barker Rd (Eagle on the hill) in this. In the interests of simplicity and readability, I think this points to having a single article. Yeti Hunter 10:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm also against the merge. I haven't said much about it so far because I largely agree with what Michael said, but I do not believe that it would be necessary or particularly helpful. Rebecca 09:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- So, how to make a finald decision?
- The two articles is confusing --TheJosh 13:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Since there has been no action (no consensus?) this article's entry at WP:PM is being erased... at least for the time being.B.Wind (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
